Star Tribune Editorial: Keep that Bridge Project on Pace

Here we go again. At a time when a St. Croix bridge project is one of the few proposals anywhere receiving bipartisan support -- from members of Congress as well as the Democratic governor of Minnesota and Wisconsin's Republican governor -- environmentalists are launching a new push to sandbag the effort.

Calling themselves the Sensible Stillwater Bridge Coalition, they're offering an alternative bridge proposal that's neither sensible nor environmentally sound. Folks, we've crossed this bridge before -- it's a recycled version of a proposal that was offered previously by environmentalists, but failed to receive support for good reason.

We can't say it enough: The four-lane bridge project backed by Republican U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann and Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar was the choice of more than two dozen stakeholders who spent three years working with a federal mediator to determine the best option.

These stakeholders were assembled after decades of previous vetting of proposals to replace the aging Lift Bridge in downtown Stillwater. The affected Minnesota and Wisconsin communities, politicians, historical preservationists, and numerous local, state and federal agencies painstakingly worked together to find the best bridge option.

In the early stages of this long debate, this page shared many of the concerns environmentalists raised about any new bridge being built. Those concerns have been addressed, which is why we now continue to urge Congress to green light the four-lane bridge to be built blufftop-to-blufftop south of downtown Stillwater.

In refusing to move on, environmentalists are not only obstructing a worthy project but are undermining their own credibility at a time when Minnesota needs their voices on issues such as mining and water quality.

The coalition claims their project got lost in the earlier debate, but that's not true. A version of their "lower and slower" bridge was rejected, in part, because of the environmental harm it would cause to the area. The Bachmann-Klobuchar backed project was deemed less environmentally harmful to the area's bluffs, floodplains and wetlands, as well as to residential and commercial property.

That a new bridge is needed isn't in doubt. The Stillwater bridge is rapidly deteriorating and no longer meets 21st-century transportation demands. The not-so-sensible bridge proposed by this new coalition is shortsighted in that regard. Members are pushing a three-lane bridge that would be obsolete and unsuitable to the area's growing traffic demands even before it's built.

The coalition estimated that its diagonal bridge would cost $283 million. The estimated cost of the Bachmann-Klobuchar project is $292 million. An additional $340 million is needed for engineering, highway and other expenses, such as preserving historic sites. The monies have been set aside.

Despite the rhetoric, much of the bridge debate really comes down to aesthetics. Environmentalists think the blufftop proposal supported by Bachmann and Klobuchar would scar the landscape.

That depends on your perspective. In our view, the bigger eyesore would be the coalition's proposal that the bridge stretch diagonally across the waterway in downtown Stillwater. It would mar the scenic view now enjoyed by people walking in downtown Stillwater. Instead of seeing the river, they would mainly see a bridge, while hearing the rumble and breathing the fumes of vehicles.

An act of Congress is needed because the river falls under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Fortunately, progress is slowly being made. Later this month, a hearing on Klobuchar's bill has been scheduled by a key congressional subcommittee. This is a promising sign.