Just wondering who is paying for the St. Croix River bridge (Stillwater: taxes, living in)

[iNviNciBL3]

Originally Posted by 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.

So the plan before the 36 curve is ruled out now? that seemed like the plan that makes the most sense

[golfgal]

I doubt that having the traffic re-routed out of downtown would hurt businesses there. The back-ups really happen when the bridge is up for boat traffic. The bridge is so much a part of Stillwater that I would hate to see it torn down. It needs to stay and be converted to a pedestrian bridge.

mn55110--the original plan was to just extend 36 at the bend and build the new bridge there. It does make the most sense however, the protected waterway issue stopped that site from being viable. 25 years ago they were buying homes and land and prepping that area to handle the new bridge and that was put to a screeching halt by the federal government. Unfortunately there is no real good answer for this, thus the 30 year fight over what to do.

[Ghengis]

Originally Posted by Govie

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

the trouble is, I believe that the cheeseheads' currency consists of sticks, rocks, bone fragments and pieces of lint which are difficult to convert to American Dollars.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by BobMarley_1LOVE

So the plan before the 36 curve is ruled out now? that seemed like the plan that makes the most sense

Right now everything is ruled out or there would be a new bridge .

Someone just needs to come up with a plan that doesn't destroy the scenic value of the river and is cost effective. Maybe some futuristic plexiglass type material would work?? If Jim and Spock come back from the future and need to transport some whales....

[golfgal]

Congress approves the St. Croix bridge | StarTribune.com

Congress approves the bridge...after 30 years of fighting about it...


http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/stcroix/

DOT animation of how the traffic will flow

[Mdcastle]

And Obama signs it...

It's just standard practice to split the cost of an interstate structure 50/50 regardless of which state benefits more. That eliminates all the controversy over which state benefits more. Minnesota residents commuting to La Crosse will be the biggest benefits of the I-90 Bridge Replacement but Wisconsin is still paying half the cost. They in fact paid 100% of the cost of the Big Blue Bridge in La Crosse to benefit Minnesota commuters since the wider channel of the Mississippi river is entirely in Wisconsin. I'm actually ashamed at all the trash-talking aimed at Wisconsonites on various forums. They're American citizens just like us, they just happen to cheer for the wrong football team.:-) Whether you think the bridge should be built or not the fact that they're from another state shouldn't matter.

As noted the difference in the split of the cost of the project is because the Minnesota approach roads are more expensive, about twice as expensive, I don't know why as the Minnesota approach will be a 45mph street with traffic lights and the Wisconsin approach will be a 65mph freeway, but maybe it's building it under traffic in an urban area.

A few notes about the cost: It's only the most expensive project in state history when you figure the entire thing as a Minnesota project with no contributions by WI or the feds, and use non-inflation adjusted dollars. The $700 million figure comes from using the high-end of the estimates and then rounding further. The direct cost to Minnesota taxpayers is around $150 million.

[Thegonagle]

Originally Posted by Mdcastle

The $700 million figure comes from using the high-end of the estimates and then rounding further. The direct cost to Minnesota taxpayers is around $150 million.

Well then is $150 million the low-end estimate, with further downward rounding?

I'm thinking that like many construction projects lately, it could come in under budget, but not that far under budget.

Support the project, or don't support the project. But don't make ridiculous assertions to make something seem more palatable than it is.

[Mdcastle]

I said direct cost to Minnesota taxpayers, not the total cost of the project.

The official Mn/DOT estimate has been revised downward on the lower end as the thinking is that soils may more favorable than first thought. so the official Mn/DOT estimate for the entire cost is from 571-676 million. I couldn't find answers from a neutral site and the numbers of a pro-bridge site don't add up, but using their percentage of federal funding at 60% that leaves $228-$270 million for Minnesota and Wisconsin to pay for, or $125-$150 million as Minnesota's share. To be fair, federal funding doesn't come from the vaporizer, iit ultimately comes from taxpayers too, and in fact Minnesota gives a lot more than it takes from federal funding. so it may be more fair to just use Minnesota's 55% cost of the total project as the cost to the state, or $315-$370 million. (It should be noted that the new Minnesota 41 freeway crossing is estimated in the same $600-$700 million ballpark, but of course the costs and benefits will all be Minnesota).

[Drewcifer]

It is interesting that this one bridge costs almost as much as the Central Corridor LRT. Why aren't the people who protest "choo choo trains" as overpriced boondoggles up in arms about this too.

[knke0204]

Originally Posted by Green Onions

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

Oh reeaaally? Because I will never use that bridge. But people have a problem saying a Vikings Stadium is ludacris? Thanks people!