New Stillwater bridge awaits congressional action, approved by committee Thursday morning
November 10, 2011 at 4:26 am in Hudson Star-Observer
A new bridge over the St. Croix River between Minnesota and Wisconsin awaits votes by the full U.S. House and Senate.
The final committee hurdle came Thursday morning when the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved the bridge with bipartisan support. The final House committee already has given the plan its blessing.
Continue Reading
Anyone who stands against this bridge has no idea the long term impact of their actions. Yes there is an 8 lane bridge 6 miles apart but how do they figure those cars will get to that bridge. I will tell you through a 2 lane ( 1 each way) downtown Hudson. Businesses will see a decrease in revenue as less and less people realize that downtown Hudson will be too congested to enjoy.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
6
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
5 
24
You’re half right…a cheaper bridge would have been built years ago, if not for the big spenders. It would likely have been smaller (lower traffic counts back then) and possibly in a different location. Not only would the construction cost have been cheaper, but the public would have saved the $$$ that has been spent in the last 20 or so years on study after study–followed by legal challenge after legal challenge.
Here’s where you’re wrong: The big spenders that have delayed the bridge are those who have used the hammer of environmentalism and the sickle of obstructionism to drive up the cost of a replacement bridge. This is not necessarily a conservative crowd, as you can see by the current crop of opponents.
If there’s going to be a Stillwater bridge, build the replacement now…before it gets more expensive–and before the current one collapses.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
4
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
2 
23
2004 data: 18,000 vehicle crossings per day on average. That’s 6,570,000 vehicle crossings per year.
Is that what you meant by “a handful” of people using the bridge?
Let’s assume the proposed bridge lasts 80 years, like the old one. Let’s also assume that the new bridge won’t experience any new traffic, just the same 18,000 vehicle crossings from 2004. That comes to a total of 525,600,000 crossings or about $1.29 per crossing for the capital cost. In reality, the traffic counts will go up (probably already have) and the per crossing cost will actually be less.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
3
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
4 
17
so what if those cars live right on top of the dang bridge…who cares? there still is a shart ton of cars that need to cross, and the SW current disaster of a bridge is JUNK. Everyone knows what hudson traffic is like when the SW bridge closes. (because its a PILE that cant even function in yearly flooding…)
Like or Dislike:
13 
2
Just for the record, I’m not opposed to the bridge being paid for by those who use it.
To be fair, of course, those who use the Hudson bridge should pay a toll. And those who use the Osceola bridge…and the Taylors Falls/St Croix Falls bridge…and the Prescott bridge…and so on, up and down the line. I’ve also noticed that there are a lot of roads that I never drive on–and parks I never use–so I’d like to have those paid for only by the people who use them as well.
Where do you draw the line? Should food stamps and welfare benefits only be paid by those who use them?
Like or Dislike:
12 
3
A cheaper bridge would have been built if the Sierra Club would stop continuing to stall the project. This has nothing to do with conservatives but every thing to do with the Sierra Club.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
6