STW, Build a bridge. Who cares about her political career problems if you live in WI. She is no different than most of the DC elites including the POTUS....absent when campaigning and not being there representing the people.

Sorry, I was in a bad mood. And yes, build a bridge.

Thank you for the source, but it groups the numbers by county - it does not break it down any further. I believe that you can agree that a much larger population lies around, and is serviced by I94 than by 64. Even if you want to say that the particular area serviced by Highway 64 will also grow by 58%, that number does not justify spending $690 million dollars. Simply....if you want to add 58% to the current number of commuters using the lift bridge, the number may increase to 16,000 daily (32,000 if you count driving to work, and back again). By comparison to any other bridge in either state, this is not fiscally responsible. Even if you only use the figure ($292 million) for the span itself. The population, and even the potential population, does not justify the size and cost of the proposed project.

"The Sensible Bridge alternative radically reduces the cost of this project with a bridge of the same length and capacity:

1. Avoiding a costly interchange at highways 36 and 95. Rather traffic will simply continue on 36 closer to Stillwater and access the new span there.

2. On the Wisconsin side, the bridge would use current highway 35/64 access down the hill from Houlton, avoiding construction of a bluff top approach, relocation of WI 35 and construction of a new interchange required in the current proposal. And, obviate the need for $36 million-plus in land acquisition in Wisconsin.

3. The bridge would be posted at 40 miles per hour vs. 65 miles per hour for the mega bridge, be substantially lower over the river, and 2/3 as wide – all requiring less design and construction costs, but still carrying the same capacity at lower speeds with much less noise for Stillwater, Bayport and Houlton residents and river users.

4 The $26 million in mitigation expenses negotiated in the Stakeholders process for the big bridge would be substantially reduced as a new bluff top to bluff top cut is not required.

5. Finally, engineering and contingency risks for a much more appropriately scaled bridge are reduced."

Why must it be bluff to bluff?

Since you are familiar with the Sensible Bride design, you must know that the costs applied to MDNOT's design can not be applied in the exact amounts or ways to all bridge designs for the location.

I do agree that the intersections at 36/Osgood and 36/Greeley have to be redone....in fact, this should have been done years ago, and there is no reason that it can not be done now - even before any bridge is built. MNDOT did not need to wait on this, yet they were even trying to delay repaving the pot hole riddled frontage roads in Oak Park Heights. It wasn't until the city of Oak Park Heights, fed up with all the complaints, approved an expenditure to place signs on the roadway stating that MNDOT was responsible for repaving, not the city, did it get done.

Randy, where is the "vast evidence" that suggests that MnDOT is clueless? They are continually lauded by bridge opponents for bringing in the 35W bridge at such a low cost on a short timetable.

Susan, where do you come up with 15 years for MnDOT to come up with alternatives? The fact is (and I strongly encourage you, Randy and other opponents to stick to facts and not feelings), the four-lane bridge proposal was approved in the 1990s by the National Park Service.

Then it was rejected in 1996 as a result of a Sierra Club lawsuit to protect, among other things, endangered mussels. Then it was approved again in 2005 by the Federal Highway Administration, and the NPS again reversed its position and concluded that the proposed four-lane bridge would NOT violate Section 7 of the WSRA.

So MnDOT proceeded with planning for the four-lane bridge. Then, five years later, after another Sierra Club lawsuit, the NPS flip-flopped again and rejected the four-lane crossing in October, 2010. My math tells me that MnDOT has had 15 MONTHS to come up with alternatives, not 15 years.

Public opinion doesn't need to be swayed. By any measure, it's already solidly in favor of a four-lane bridge that connects to existing four-lane highways and adequately meets the transportation needs of the 16th largest metropolitan area in the country.

I do not make up ideas, or skew facts, here is what has happened in the last fifteen years:

In 1996, the National Park Service (NPS) ruled that a plan for the construction of a new, four-lane bridge south of Stillwater would violate the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

Then, in 2005, NPS reversed their decision and ruled to allow the bridge to be built.

After a lawsuit, Judge Michael Davis ruled that the National Parks Service's 2005 evaluation was "arbitrary and capricious" because they didn't explain why they suddenly reversed their opinion. On October 15, 2010, the National Park Service announced that they would not write a new plan, and would not allow the bridge to be built.

In 1996 (15 - now going on 16 years ago), MNDOT was told NO to this design!

Public opinion is in favor of a new bridge - no argument there. BUT once people are told the details of this mega bridge, they are reevaluating what they believe this area needs, and what is fiscally responsible.

You can preach all day that the St. Croix Valley is part of one of the largest metropolitan areas of the country, but most people who live here, do not want that urban sprawl here.

Joe, first, I think it is disingenuous to group all opposers together, claiming we all have the exact reason/s you think. It would be just as disingenuous to group the advocates together in one group - some want an easier commute, some just want the traffic congestion out of downtown Stillwater, and some want in on the financial gain to be made in developing St. Croix County.

As for myself, whether you want to believe it or not, cost is my first complaint - I am truly appalled at the cost of this huge project when you look at the number of people that will be using this bridge.

"give or take a hundred million dollars"....did you really just write that? Honestly, herein lies the problem!

If you have "the facts" that "show no design will cost less than the current one", can you give me that source please?

Bob K, perhaps you've heard of the Wakota Bridge project? Other than the fact that it cost twice as much as expected and took twice as long (forcing numerous businesses in the Newport area to shut their doors in the process) it was probably a smashing success. Don't forget about the embarrassing truck station project in Chaska. It's handling of the St. Croix crossing has also showed incredible arrogance and a complete disregard for the law. Joe, why can't it be both? Any reasonable person can see this project costs far too much for the benefit(s) received or created. People want a bridge crossing. I want a bridge crossing. The difference is most people want any resolution and are so selfish that they don't care how much it costs or how many other projects are stalled because the extraordinary costs for a project to primarily benefit developers and Wisconsin commuters. Also, why the rush to turn the St. Croix Valley into North Woodbury? There's a reason people pay more money to buy houses in the St. Croix Valley and it's not because we want more suburban sprawl.

Joe, you ask us to speak our truth and facts, instead of our feelings, yet you are doing just that exact thing. Bob does not have the exact figures for the other bridge, and neither do you, because they do not yet exist. You can not just assume that any bridge project crossing the St. Croix River near Stillwater will cost $600+ million, and use that as an argument, or "fact". This alternative bridge does not run bluff to bluff, so the costs will never be the same.

Although I could also insult you, and speak of your level of understanding of economics, facts, engineering, misinformation, and confusion, I prefer to keep this civil, and stick to the ACTUAL facts.

If there are people who's first complaint is urban sprawl in Wisconsin, then that is their right, and there is nothing wrong with wanting to maintain their rural way of life...it doesn't mean they are a Sierra Club member, a tree hugger, or love their river view. Please stop making accusations about those you know nothing about.

Bob used the figures for MNDOT's proposal, and applied them to any bridge to be built here, whether it is bluff to bluff or not, crossing at 36 or not, or any other design. There is no way that those figures will be applied exactly to any bridge design here....they can ONLY be applied to that design....so the only fact here, is that these figures were for that one design.

Again, there is no fact that says it will take only one year, three years, or ten years for any other design to get approved.....this is only conjecture....again.

MNDOT has made claims that this design may not be as environmentally suitable, but that has not been substantiated by facts - facts that would be available to the general public if they existed.

Again you are claiming a "fact" that it has to be a big bridge. This is simply not true, unless this bill get passed in The House. It doesn't "have" to be a big bridge, this is simply the option that MNDOT wants, regardless of how many times they have been told no. The definition of big bridge can be seen in several different ways - my opposition is to a four-lane, 65 mph, freeway bridge, and we do not "have" to have this here.

You seem to be using "ideas" and "statements" that have been thrown around, and you are claiming they are facts - this is simply not the case. So before you imply that others are uninformed, misinformed, dishonest with themselves, or are not weighing the "facts", please make sure you hold yourself to the same standard.

Just for clarification, again your statements are opinion - there has not been a thorough comparison done, and bluff to bluff has not been proven to be environmentally less damaging - if this were true, wouldn't MNDOT make all of this information public to put this issue to bed?

"Forever" is subjective opinion - we have seen first hand (35W) that this state, and MNDOT can get a project done in a timely manner, if they really want it done.

I can not speak for those environmental opposers that you reference, but the Sierra Clubs calls the other design a "balanced and reasonable compromise".

I agree, Susan. You should stop saying the same thing over and over.

Ditto to you Bob.

The Senate unanimously passed its bill in favor of allowing the 4 lane bridge to be built. Even B. McCullom has said she thinks there are enough votes in the House to pass the same bill. Why would all of these legislators wish to build an over-priced and over-sized bridge? Would it be an opinion that the bridge is oversized and overpriced? Or would it be that even though it has a gargantuan pricetag it is the right thing to do at present considering: the dilapitated and potentially dangerous condition of the lift bridge, the need for smooth traffic flow for future decades, timing, environmental considerations, and the fact that even the Sierra club and B. McCullom ostensibly agree that we need a new bridge? I'd bet that the four WI and MN senators have reviewed the facts of the cost, needed current and future size of the bridge, need for 4 or 3 or 2 lanes, potential alternatives such as the 3 lane version, impact (including cost) of years more of delay (yes that's a prediction not a fact), environmental impact, and relative costs of similar bridges. I don’t know what facts these senators were privy to but a unanimous vote makes me think that when they looked at the facts, the 4 lane proposal is most Sensible.

Three choices exist. 1 - Use the current bridge, which was not built to handle current or future traffic and causes congestion and pollution downtown, 2 - Build the expensive bridge. 3 - Search for an alternative.

The Sensible group, the Sierra club, and the expensive oversized mega bridge group all oppose number 1. That’s not to say it’s not a valid plan, just the choice of a small minority.

Number three would allow debate of a smaller bridge having a marginally lower cost. This sounds sensible on its face but would ultimately be more expensive. It would take years or decades of approvals (expensive lawyers), bureaucratic review (more lawyers), and lawsuits (lawyers), all of which cost money that is not accounted for in the nominal cost of the bridge. Then the future nominal cost will have increased to the current estimate and likely beyond, whether its 3 or 4 lanes. You may disagree but history shows that expensive lawsuits are a certainty and the nominal price will increase with delay. If a person is genuinely interested in excessive costs this is not a good choice.

That’s why after three decades of debate a majority (70+ percent) favors of #2, an expensive 4-lane bridge to handle current traffic and projected traffic for future decades. It’s supported by senators, Reps, and Governors of both parties. It’s expensive but less expensive than continued delay.

We have had three decades of debate PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THE FOUR LANE DESIGN.

The Sierra Club is on board with the Sensible plan, so why would there be years of lawsuits?

History also shows (35W) that this state, and MNDOT can get a bridge built and operational very quickly if they put their mind to it. There is absolutely no reason that it needs to take several years, much less a decade/s.

I don't care which politicians support this design - half of the country will disagree with almost any politician's view on a subject just because of the party they are in. Just because this has local bipartisan support, does not make it the right decision - it also has local opposition.

Tthree decades of debate, Susan? Get your facts straight. Serious planning for a lift bridge replacement crossing started in the 1980s. A report in 1987 identified six possible corridors, north of, south of and near downtown. A 1990 report narrowed it down to three possible corridors. A final site and the four-lane bridge design weren't proposed until 1995.

THEN the "debate" began in 1996 in the form of the Sierra Club telling us there could be no bridge at all.

So let's not call it debate. Let's call it 16 years of threats and interference from an outside organization that isn't familiar with and doesn't care about the plight of the people of Stillwater. Let's call it an unconscionable use of the court system to add hundreds of millions of dollars to a bridge that could have been built years ago for half the cost.

Bob, Come on, I was only replying to Joe's statement when referring to decades of debate - why didn't you correct him?

I believe I have shown that I am very familiar with the facts, and with MNDOT's statements regarding the different bridge designs. I, like you, have a right to my opinion based on the facts - facts/statements put out by MNDOT, put out by the Sensible bridge group, put out by the NPS, put out by the Sierra Club, and put out by the politicians.

The plight of all people in Stillwater, or just those that agree with you?

So, among people who live in Stillwater, who are the net winners and who are the net losers with a four-lane, freeway-style bridge?

Do most people in Stillwater, whether they agree with me or not, benefit from a crossing that:
1) Gets built sooner rather than later.
2) Moves choking traffic out of downtown.
3) Adds recreational trials and a bike loop.
4) Offers incredible vistas of the St. Croix.
5) Minimizes potential negative impacts on historical and natural resources.
6) Handles increasing traffic volumes for decades to come.

How many of those benefits does your evasive, alternative bridge offer? Maybe #2 and #3?

This bridge won't get the green light while Bachmann is in office. She's far too polarizing and incapable of facilitating bipartisan support for anything.

Her lies and and misrepresentations (and constant gaffes) wrap her in an aura of mistrust and self-serving deceit. It's hard for the average joe and jane to decouple the bridge debate from her selfish desire to get re-elected to her seat in 2012.

Then there's the issue of her constant bashing of Obama. There's no way, under his administration, he's going to reward her with the plum of funding for a new bridge for Stillwater.

If, however, Bachmann is NOT re-elected in 2012, and instead a Democrat or even a non-bashing, moderate Republican is elected to the district, this administration might reward the people who vote her out with the bridge funding. Remember who controls the transportation earmarks . . . it ain't Bachmann.

She does the people of her district no favors with her behavior on the national level. Why can't the moderate and sane Republicans see this?

Renee, you'd have far more credibility if you avoided the ridiculous statements like those made against Bachmann above about her cost estimate for the bridge. She is clearly referring to the bridge itself and not the other costs that were not necessary for the rebuild of the I35 bridge. I hope your correct about it not passing the house, but isn't it just as likely that Obama loses in the fall and Bachmann and her ilk will be able to build a Vikings Stadium on the St. Croix if they choose.

Yes there is a lot of nostalgia. I've been attached to Stillwater since I was very young and my dad would regularly bring me and my brother and sister to look at the smokestack from the Holton side. There used to be a lookout and now it is overgrown. We lived in North Saint Paul. Hwy 36 was two lanes with no lights and the only commerce on the Hill was Tara's. Others have similar great memories. Stillwater has grown a lot since then and there's no going back. But in my opinion the growth has been good growth. It is also my opinion that a new bridge that removes the downtown congestion will allow even more growth and that growth will be good and is necessary. Others believe that the consequences will be more negative than positive but I think on balance the effects will be favorable, especially getting the congestion out of downtown.

Growth is good an necessary depends on your point of view. Mpls-St. Paul is one of the most sprawled urban areas in the nation. Between 1982 and 1992 Minnesota lost 2.3 million acres of farmland to development. The bridge will open up new areas to suburban development. Cost for low density development, for water and sewer service alone, for the taxpayers, would be in the billions.

The question is whether we want to continue the pattern of development of the 80's and 90's as we go forward in an energy challenged world. It takes a lot of gas and road maintenance when people live in Wisconsin to commute to jobs in Minneapolis. Not so sure it is a good idea to facilitate this type of behavior -- it is costly for the greater society.

By all means, let's trade the American Dream for life in the Sustainable Urban Core. Let's tell people they have to live in multi-family housing because social policy has made single-family homes artificially expensive.

Instead of more zoning and restrictions to confine people, how about letting people live where they want to live, whether that's a high-density urban core or out in the country on 10 acres?

The real hypocrites are the so-called progressives who claim to care about low-and middle-class people, yet support policies designed to prevent most of them from having a single-family home with some land they can call their own.

Apparently it's better to make the taxpayers shoulder the burden of new bridges, roads, sewer and water lines to expanding suburbia so that you can "live where I want".

Funny. If the free market works, let the free market build the bridge, and charge the people who want to "live where I want".

It's not my responsibility to pay taxes so to subsidize your "live where I want" dreams. Pay your own way to your 10 acres in western Wisconsin.

Get rid of the micromanagement by Washington DC and the free market would have built a bridge by now. I'd be all for it.

By that reasoning, it's not your responsibility to pay taxes to subsidize anything you don't use or don't agree with: schools, roads, social welfare programs, wars, prisons, etc. You benefit directly and indirectly when your taxes subsidize people's "dreams."

You benefit by others' benefiting. That's how civilized societies work and keep anarchy at bay; people help each other out.

By the way there's plenty of energy. It just won't come from expensive and inefficient technologies like windmills and solar panels but from natural gas and oil and coal, like always.

Joe, live wherever you want but then don't whine that you have to pay for a little more gas because it is financially irresponsible for the taxpayers to support the choices you or other commuters from Wisconsin have made. There is plenty of room for development in Woodbury and Lake Elmo is being forced to double its population in the next 20 years so nobody is taking away those dreams of home ownership by not throwing away $700 million in the process. The American Dream lives, Bob, but this project cannot be labeled as anything but out of control government spending and I don't really see how that helps anybody.

Randy, try this label on for size: long overdue spending necessary to meet the transportation objectives and clear the environmental obstacles of an interstate crossing of a federally protected river for the next 100 years; spending which has been significantly inflated due to periodic lawsuits by a non-local entity and delaying tactics by grandstanding politicians.

Who does it help? I'd say the 75+ percent people who live around here, have seen the math and still want a four-lane bridge.

Sure. How about 77% in favor in the Patch straw poll? http://stillwater.patch.com/articles/which-side-of-the-st-croix-river-crossing-debate-are-you-on#photo-8477276

Or 85% in favor in the poll designed and administered by two independent public research firms. http://www.stcroixcrossing.org/survey-shows-86-of-st-croix-valley-voters-support-proposed-st-croix-river-crossing/

Now since I know you'll dismiss these out of hand as being somehow biased, could you provided a link to the poll where the majority of local residents don't want a bridge? You and Randy need to get out and talk to people in town. Do your own informal polls and see what people say.

All politics is local, Randy. Probably 75 percent of people anywhere are not too keen on expenditures that don't benefit them directly.

Which makes my point and invalidates yours. If the only people benefiting from the bridge are 9,000 Wisconsin commuters, as you've claimed time and time again, why do the majority of non-commuters who live on this side of the river want it?

I was willing to take another look at the project, and an alternative was looked at -- twice within the last year. And twice within the last year it was rejected for underestimating costs, misjudging environmental impacts and overpromising benefits.

If you want to indulge in government conspiracy theories on what motivates MnDOT to consistently support the four-lane bridge, go right ahead. And promise you'll never use the bridge that more than three-quarters of the people support.

Three quarters (or more) of the people here want a new bridge, and because the powers that be are shoving this bridge design down our throats as the only viable option, most are just sick of the subject and say "just build the bridge". Once people take the time and do the research, or are told about the cost and stats, they are shocked, and many opinions are changing.

The way the polls and government officials are getting the public to say they want the bridge is because they are asking the wrong question: "Do you want a new bridge?", The question should be: "Do you want a $700 million dollars bridge project, or do you think MNDOT should put serious consideration into a smaller, more fiscally responsible bridge design?". These people who put out polls are very clever in designing the questions, and they are certainly aware of how to word, and arrange a series of questions to get the results they want.

We can argue all day about whether the sensible design will be less expensive or not, or how much savings may be worth a year, two years, or five years delay. The simple FACT is that no one knows for sure because MNDOT (or anyone else) has not done the work to come up with the accurate numbers.

It seems pretty clear that MNDOT wants a 65mph bridge, and will work against anything else

I agree. I think that justifying spending such an outlandish amount of money here, just because we are tired of waiting for a bridge is shameful. There are over 1000 other bridges in this state that need work - work that takes money. Shouldn't our money be budgeted a little more responsibly, so that more people can benefit from the same amount of money?

We don't need a billion dollars, Randy. The latest comprehensive figures from the Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments of Transportation (which are inflated to the mid-point of construction in 2015, i.e., 2011 costs + 17%), show the project total at $574 - $690 million. So barely over half a billion, really. I bet for a billion we could get eight lanes and a laser light show every night.

Randy, you're like someone who goes into a car dealership looking for a vehicle that will seat five and then being ASTONISHED that a five-passenger vehicle costs more than a four-passenger vehicle. So now you're trying to talk your family into cramming three people into a back seat made for two -- all so you can feel good about saving some money.

No Bob, it's like needing a new car, and using that excuse to justify buying a Mercedes, instead of buying the Ford (or Chevy), that will get the job done, and cost half the price!

That would be fine if there was a Ford or Chevy that would get the job done. But so far the only alternative that's been put forward is a 1978 AMC Pacer. To say that the four-lane crossing has all the bells and whistles of a Mercedes is inaccurate and misleading. Maybe it's got the engineering of a Mercedes, but that's not a bad thing for a bridge designed to carry people over water for 100 years.

And the point is, that a Chevy or a Ford WILL get the job done! A car is a car..it moves people to their destination, just as a bridge is a bridge and without the obstruction of stoplights, will also move people. A four-lane freeway bridge may move people a few minutes faster, but is that worth the price, when we are talking about HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS...a few minutes...really?

It doesn't make sense to get a Chevy Sonic when we can get a Chevy Impala for just a little more.

The difference between the four-lane crossing and the alternative three-lane crossing is not hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, it has been demonstrated that the true cost of a lower, slower, smaller bridge -- with its inherent delays, increased mitigation costs and added engineering costs will be about the same as the four-lane crossing.

Plus the aesthetic costs are staggering. What mitigation does your "subcompact Chevy" option offer for destroying the scenic view of the river for residents of and visitors to Stillwater? Instead of a modern bridge downriver gracefully soaring from bluff to bluff, you're pushing for a bland, outdated design that gives us a shore-to-shore view of congested, noisy traffic. That's your solution? "Stillwater: Enjoy the Small Stretch of River Between the Bridges."

What you obstructionists don't want to come to grips with is the fact that there will be growth in the next century and there will be increased traffic demands. A shortsighted plan that builds for today only is a much bigger waste of money than doing it right the first time.

To continue the metaphor Bob, we are not talking a Chevy Impala, you are talking about a Mercedes!

You can not say that the costs of the sensible bridge are the same as the mega bridge because they have NOT BEEN PROVEN. MNDOT's own report (August 2011), although written in a manner to give the reader a negative opinion of the diagonal design, is full of words like "may be", and "could be".

I will respect your opinion of which bridge will look better, because this is simply an opinion, and everyone is entitled to their own, but I don't know that the lift bridge gives the river such a beautiful view in downtown...also an opinion.

Your own potential population figures don't support your statement that that three lanes are outdated. So how many years do you expect that mega bridge to last until it reaches anything near capacity?

Susan, to say this bridge is a Mercedes is to show your ignorance of both cars and bridges. The Mercedes brand has consistently been known for luxury and cutting edge technology, not mere functionality. The bridge is a very basic bridge, even staid in its design. MnDOT has gone out of its way to present something functional and unobtrusive, with enough style so as not to be completely ugly -- in other words, a Chevy Impala.

You can't say that the "sensible" bridge is any cheaper. The truth lies somewhere between the claims of that bridge's backers and MnDOT's deductions. Like I've said before, I'll take the opinion of professional transportation engineers over residential architects and environmental do-gooders that have zero expertise in bridge construction.

It's not the projected population figures that make the three-lane bridge outdated, it's common sense. With three lanes and no hard shoulders, your "cutting corners" approach ensures that breakdowns, accidents, plowing and any maintenance work will cause severe congestion.

And then we're right back where we started.

Right back where we started except that now, you too feel the need to throw insults and labels at the person you are debating vs staying on topic.

Mercedes meaning an expensive luxury item, vs a more economical dependable item that will get the job done. As I mentioned below, even a $100 million dollar savings would be a good thing for this economy, state, and it's residents.

I'm sorry, Susan. Maybe I should have said, "your lack of knowledge" about cars and bridges, which is completely on topic because you're making an inaccurate analogy.

The proposed bridge (which again accounts for only $292.1 million of the overall project cost) does not have the equivalent of seven-speed automatic transmission with manual mode and paddle shifters, eight-way power-adjustable heated front seats with four-way lumbar support, a power liftgate and rain sensing windshield wipers.

The four-lane bridge is the same length as the sensible bridge. The main differences: it has one more lane and it's higher above the water. That's it. The benefits outweigh the "extra" cost, if there is any.

"Every expert that has examined the bridge has lied"??? So is MNDOT lying now when they say the lift bridge is still safe? Do you want to believe MNDOT when they are saying this mega bridge is needed, yet not believe them when they say the lift bridge is safe?

Yes, we need a new bridge, but the cost between $400 million and $700 million is NOT pinching pennies. Heck, even if they can save a "measly" $50 million, it would be worth it.

Jim, you're a fine standard bearer for the opposition. Let's just round it up to $1.5 billion because who knows what the cost of gold will be in three years (it IS gold-plated, right?).

And to be fair, there can't be more than 150 vehicles that use the bridge in a week. Let's tear down that eyesore of an old bridge and, while we're at it, let's tear down everything else that's listed on the National Register of Old Places in Stillwater.

I will give in to your point that this may be over - all it needs is a vote in The House, and it could be a done deal. I will not however, give up on the notion that saving even $100 million dollars would be worth a couple extra years...if you want to call me ignorant and naive, then yes, it's insulting, and brings the level of a debate down to an ugly standard that is not necessary.

Five to ten years of delays, lawsuits, and an extra $300+ million are all speculation and opinions, and these ideas are not backed up by facts.

If you can't see the difference between Stillwater and Woodbury then please move to Woodbury and let the rest of us appreciate what is a wonderful place to live. I'm not saying development won't ever happen down the road, but you are flat out crazy if you think anything is going to be happening in the next several years. Maybe you need to drive around all those empty developments in the St. Croix Valley (you can start with Inspiration in Bayport and then figure out how many parcels Lake Elmo will be developing to meet their growth requirements. I don't think gas is coming down in price and do you really think there will be any people left to occupy space in western Wisconsin when property is worth more as farmland than residential development. Years of development, now that's funny. Can you imagine how many more bankrupt housing developments would exist in Wisconsin if this bridge were build five or six years ago?

Randy I'm not insulting Stillwater but what is the difference other than the downtown area and the river views from some residential areas. Are you referring only to the larger population or something qualitative?
If I were standing in Liberty or another Stillwater housing development I wouldn't know the difference between it and a similar one in Woodbury, and vice versa. Each suburb has the same variety of big box stores on the highway. Target, Cub, Lowes. Same restaurants. Similar schools. Outside of the view and the downtown area, which will I agree are wonderful but would not be less so with a new bridge, how specifically is Stillwater more wonderful than Woodbury? And how would that higher level of wonderfulness be hurt by more traffic passing along 36 and higher demand for property in Stillwater? Do you just not like the size and busy-ness of Woodbury? What about Hudson?
Also, the development is certain and with immediate benefits.

"what is the difference other than the downtown area and the river views from some residential areas. Are you referring only to the larger population or something qualitative? "

You must not live in the Stillwater area.

Huge cultural difference between Woodbury and Stillwater. Stillwater was the first city in Minnesota, a center of commerce and industry throughout the 1800's (lumbering town). Many of the leading families in Stillwater are 5th generation (or more) in the area. There is a pride and a legacy, 200 years that just don't exist in Woodbury, and that difference, alone, is huge.

Woodbury was, pretty much, a cornfield, until recently. It is a "bedroom community" that lacks culture when you compare it to Stillwater, but of course that has it's advantages, too.

Stillwater embraces the arts, has a unique character and history, and people there are more "invested" in their community. Their ancestors lived there and they expect their children to live there. Being good stewards of the community character and culture is very important to them.

Woodbury is just a place to hang your hat for a while, close to the interstate to get to work and shopping at the big box stores. It's a convenience place to live.

Stillwater is considerably more than that to those who live there. They value the aesthetic and cultural difference.

Clearly you don't live in Stillwater, because you don't "get" it.

Renee. Sounds reasonable if you buy into the idea of "leading families," whatever those are. I don't "get" that at all. I think I'm happy I don't.
The more important thing is: how would any of that be diminished by building a new bridge?

Sorry to use that term. I was thinking of the political and opinion leaders in the community, as well as some of the leading merchants, artists, etc. I think you can call those people community leaders, and many have had family members in those same roles going back a few generations.

How does a bridge change that? Well, development patterns could change, and more outsiders could move into the area. That changes the culture (they only have to look to Woodbury to see the negative effects of rapid growth and a transient population), and theirs is a culture that depends, to a large degree, on continuity of the existing values. The values of the residents who are multi-generational have been passed down for 150 to 200 years, and dilution of those values is not perceived to be a good thing.

They don't want to be a Woodbury, culturally, which means no definable culture.

You make them sound like their Amish. I have friends from Stillwater and they seem like everyone else. I'll take your word for the culture issues.

A good way to get at the cultural difference would be to ask your friends who live in Stillwater if they'd like to live in Woodbury.

When they say "no", ask them why they wouldn't like Woodbury.

Listen closely. Their answers will reveal this value/culture difference I'm speaking of.

"Most research is performed to provide a predetermined outcome based on politics." You are right - and this is exactly how the big phone survey that all the politicians are now screaming about was done. It is even the same for the question here on Patch's other page. These surveys are asking the wrong questions! They are implying that you either have to want this mega bridge, or no bridge.

Yes, we all want a new bridge, but do we NEED a four lane, $700 million dollar, bluff to bluff bridge to accommodate so few commuters? It really depends on who/which side you believe. There are no facts to back up either side of the argument.

Like I said. I don't think the rate of growth is the issue. A bridge is needed for current levels of traffic. It should also meet future needs for decades. There is no cheaper or smaller alternative that I've seen that can be built without unneeded delay, and delay will increase the ultimate price. I'm not convinced that waiting will result in a lower cost bridge.
I'm becoming more and more convinced that the real objection is that the bridge will change the nature of Stillwater, and that "cost" is a complete canard. That makes me feel better in a way because at least I can comprehend the logic there. I don't understand the logic that a smaller and cheaper yet still useful bridge design is available if we continue the debate.

Aren't we also talking about gas prices at $4+ per gallon? How far do you extend the metropolitan area? Most people that were moving to St. Croix County, and still commuting to the twin cities, are middle class people who will start reevaluating when their gas bill to commute, exceeds the savings they are finding in the cost of housing in western Wisconsin.

Good point, Susan. Yes, gas is bound to get more expensive. But that makes the eastern edge of the metro area that much more attractive because it's the closest area to the Cities that hasn't already been developed.

Development to the north, west and south already extends for 40 or more miles from the metro core. See the map at http://gis.metc.state.mn.us/plu/

Why is development to the east only sustainable for 20 - 25 miles?

And as gas gets more expensive, more hybrid, plug-in hybrid and electric cars will be produced, making them more economical for commuters in eastern Minnesota and western Wisconsin.

I am not quite sure I understand your map, in connection to your statement. I don't see areas 40 miles to the west of Minneapolis any more developed than I see it 40 miles east of St Paul.

Yes, I agree more people will buy cars that have better gas mileage etc., but we can also say that Americans love their big vehicles, including trucks and SUVs...especially in states with snow six months of the year. They may be making hybrid SUVs, but they still do not get great mpg.

I understand, Bob, you want the St. Croix Valley to look like Brooklyn Park, Lakeville, Ramsey, etc. Do you honestly think those areas are better places to live than the St. Croix Valley? What would that type of development do to make this area a better place to live? We need to be responsible about future development. Don't you ever wonder why property values in Stillwater and some surrounding areas have remained so much stronger by comparison to other areas of the metro? Once again, what will all this development do to improve our lives?

Randy: "Don't you ever wonder why property values in Stillwater and some surrounding areas have remained so much stronger by comparison to other areas of the metro?"

Are you willing to back that up? I look regularly at real estate in Stillwater, WBL, Dellwood, Hudson, Lake Elmo, St. Paul, and (heavens no!) Woodbury. In my experience Stillwater does not stand out as any different from those other areas in value (not more or less expensive based on comparable properties).
In any case, why would growth from a bridge bring values down? That a bridge might cause growth and bring new residents to Stillwater, I can imagine. That it would be expected to diminish the culture or 'values' of Stillwater is more tenuous but I won't argue (even if that's true it shouldn't be the reason to not build the bridge). But, that new demand for people to live in Stillwater and resultant growth in the city would bring down property values??? Is that what you're really saying?

Randy, I think your nuance chip is faulty. Just because I'm acknowledging that the eastern metro area will grow over the next 100 years doesn't mean I "want the St. Croix Valley to look like Brooklyn Park, Lakeville, Ramsey, etc."

Thanks to things like geology, respect for history and environmental stewardship independent of the WSRA, the St. Croix Valley will always be a unique place to live. Brooklyn Park, Lakeville, Ramsey, etc., would love to have a 150-year-old historic river town at their core.

Property values in the Stillwater area will stay strong and will probably increase as development comes to western Wisconsin. Because, just like land, they're not making any more pre-Victorian and Victorian era homes.

With a new bridge and new development in western Wisconsin, downtown Stillwater business owners will prosper with more business from residents and visitors willing to linger and eager to shop in a pedestrian-friendly downtown area freed from choking traffic.

I am sorry to keep repeating myself, but it seems that some are missing a very important point. MNDOT says the lift bridge is safe! It argues every statement that was on the History Channel, and explains in detail why the lift bridge is rated why it is....it's about money people....surprising isn't it? I point this out because it doesn't seem right to use fear mongering as an argument to build the new mega bridge.

If you believe MNDOT's claims that we need this four lane, $700 million mega bridge (vs a smaller less expensive bridge), why don't you believe them when they say the lift bridge is safe?

What's best for the "greater whole" is to build a reasonably sized and priced bridge that will adequately move the current, and projected future commuters to their destination.

@ BRG
You may feel the world doesn't revolve around Stillwater, but a nice chunk of it goes through Stillwater daily.  Those that may appreciate the historical values probably don't feel like fighting the traffic anymore than the rest of us. 

@ Susan
Fear mongering?
I hardly think there is any fear mongering going on here, a new bridge was proposed LONG before the current bridge required significant repairs and maintainence.   So based on the facts, your claim this is some sort of ruse to build a mega bridge really doesn't hold up.   
Is the bridge safe?
I hope so, there are thousands crossing it daily, so I'm sure those responsible for ensuring it is functional are doing a better job inspecting our bridges than in the past.   Maybe that's why millions if dollars being spent this fall to close and repair the bridge for several months, to fix it up so it won't fail. 

Susan, I don't accept the I35W bridge failed because of undersized gussets.

1. A like vintage Ohio interstate bridge was under maintenance and the media blasting of the gussets caused the bridge to fall a number of inches. Turnes out the gussets were seriously rusted. The gussets were replaced and the bridge is in use today, it was rust that caused the failure NOT underengineered gusset plates. AND Minnesota uses more salt than Ohio.

2. A report on the I35W bridge indicated some gussets on that bridge were rusted to 1/2 their installed thickness.

3. At the time of the I35W failure the expansion joints were removed by the contractor, material was loaded off center on the bridge causing extraodinary stress on the bridge, there was no supervision of the contractor.

4. The I35W bridge was at the end of its life span and should have been replaced instead of maintained, rust was prevalent in critical areas of the bridge causing it to fail.

MnDOT and associated private entities blamed the gussets because that was the path of least resistance. Blaming the gussets put liability at the feet of companies and individuals who no longer exist.

For MnDOT to accept liability would be extreamly messy. Can you imagine the ramifications of MnDOT admitting the bridge fell because they neglected their responsibility to manage the work. The U of M studied the bridge and found severely rusted gusset plates, rusted to 1/2 the original thickness.

MnDOT is not trustworthy!

I sincerely think that MnDOT really doesn't know how safe or unsafe the lift bridge really is. Is it possible to predict when a support pier might kickout as a result of an unpredictable natural condition? Like a far away earthquake.

IMHO the lift bridge should be outfitted with rescue poles, rescue craft, throwable life jackets (dognuts), emergency phones and/or alert buttons.

So at least if the scrap metal lift bridge does succum to the pull of gravity the survivors could use the available rescue equipment to save some survivors in the water.

This was requested of all the Government agencies with no response.

I guess in the mean time when on the lift bridge open your vehicles windows and if you use it a lot maybe keep a life jacket in your vehicle, good luck. Government don't really care about public safety.

At the very least, we should have dognuts on the Lift Bridge.

Bob K, I obviously agree with you.

I contacted/emailed: Washington Co Sheriff, US CG, National Park Service, MnDNR, State Patrol, City of Stillwater, Wisconsin DOT and asked for rescue equipment on the Life Bridge.

Is there any rescue equipment on the bridge?

I even offerred to pay for the equipment, is there any?

I wondered why wouldn't at least dognuts be installed?

The only reason I can think of is NIH, Not Invented Here.

As I see it this is a TOTAL disregard of public safety by Government. It's not like they don't deploy this equipment elsewhere, there are dognuts on the pier along side the Duluth channel under the lift bridge. Why the refusal on the Stillwater Lift Bridge?

Maybe Government is afraid if lifesaving equipment is installed they will be admitting the lift bridge is unsafe??

Heck there are many accidents near the Lift Bridge that would justify life rings be installed.

What gives??

Mabe someone from a Government agency could comment, no wait that would be WAY TO MUCH TO EXPECT!!

Stupid cannot be fixed.