An eyesore, used to justify another one

  • Article by: LISA PETERS
  • Updated: September 8, 2011 - 8:18 PM

The irony in claims that the St. Croix Valley is suitable for a freeway bridge.

  • 10
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 10 of 10
wishouldpaySep. 9, 11 7:54 AM

Thank you for your thoughtful insight. I think the idea that we have one eyesore, makes it ok to have another, is ridiculous - especially when we have a perfectly good freeway bridge six miles south of this proposed bridge. Close the lift bridge if you think it is s dangerous, but save the money, $700 million could fix so many other roads and bridges - we don't NEED it in Stillwater when there is another bridge so close. Wisconsin commuters CHOSE to live on one side of the river, and work on the other. Demanding that we now spend this outrageous amount of money to make your commute easier is ludicrous.

11
2
DanW52Sep. 9, 1110:59 AM

I would compare the bridges, not the new bridge to the power plant. The new bridge gets cars away from the river, instead of 5 feet above it. The new bridge reduces cars' visibility from the river - a definite improvement. And the new bridge simply has a better appearance than the old one, which few people would disagree with. I agree with the Wild & Scenic Rivers act, but in this case we are replacing one thing with another, which will bring the river closer to the intent of that act.

1
8
eterrellSep. 9, 1112:03 PM

Uh, I and more than a few people will disagree with your statement the new bridge will look better...umm. no. The old bridge represents specific historic, and engineering ideals and recalls a specific moment in history and the relationship of Stillwater and the river when things didn't move so fast, when river boats and cars were equal, etc., and has become as much an icon of Stillwater as the feed mill and steps at the end of town. That sense of history and purpose will not be recreated in a plain concrete span that has no relationship to anything other than getting cars across it.

6
1
englup01Sep. 9, 1112:17 PM

A huge consensus of politicians from both WI and MN support this bill to build the new bridge including both MN Democrats Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken. It's time to move on. If you still don't support it then don't drive on it when it is completed.

1
8
cstoney48Sep. 9, 11 1:05 PM

It might be difficult for some to comprehend but not everyone can afford the luxury of living along the Minneapolis riverfront nor having access to a family cabin along the St. Croix in which to enshrine pristine childhood memories. Too bad we can't all be privileged like Lisa Peters. The world would then never have to change.

0
7
remoguySep. 9, 11 1:31 PM

cstoney48 - and just what does the fact that Lisa lives on the Mpls. riverfront have to do with the article? Little envious, are we?

4
0
northhillSep. 9, 11 2:03 PM

Minnesota highway 36 has been an expressway since the late fifties heading into Stillwater;before the King plant was built.Stillwater is traffic clogged at times every day.The bridge avoiding Stillwater should have been built in the 1980's.River Falls Wisconsin has seen highway 35 four laned and new housing developed from its exit from I-94.New Richmond residents have seen highway 64 bypass Somerset,yet still have drive through congested Stillwater to reach St Paul.

0
1
eterrellSep. 10, 11 8:40 AM

CStoney, if you are implying you live in Wisconsin and work in Minneapolis, so you want the bridge, newsflash, you could afford to live on the river or have a cabin by moving a reasonable distance to where you work, and saving the bucketload of gas money you are wasting everyday. Well, unless you drive a Prius, but than again, if you do, you wouldn't be dissing the author, would you?

1
0
eterrellSep. 10, 11 8:47 AM

Nothill, exactly, Wisconsin big money developers and residents benefit way more from the bridge than Minnesota, so you can pay for it! After all, now that you'all have busted the unions, which I hear were the single biggest drain on your government, you should have plenty of money available for public works.

1
0
clancy11Sep. 12, 1111:06 PM

For $700 million, could we build a tunnel under the river and save the scenic waterway for our children?

0
0
  • 1 - 10 of 10

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT