A $9.8M federal grant to help raise Hwy. 169 above flood plain near Mankato

  • Article by: Curt Brown , Star Tribune
  • Updated: July 8, 2013 - 10:00 PM

After seven closures from flooding in 20 years, a $9.8 million federal grant will help the effort to solve problem once and for all.

  • 10
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 10 of 10
harryhankJul. 8, 13 9:29 PM

I'd hate to live in a flood plane. Seems crowded.

6
0
bartel81Jul. 8, 13 9:45 PM

Headline....should be flood plain.

3
0
supervon2Jul. 8, 13 9:52 PM

Why does 169 go on the west side of the Minnesota river? It's all because St. Peter, the county seat for Nicollet invoked a law that said if a US highway ran within 10 miles of a county seat it had to pass through the county seat. So, they built a huge bridge in Le Sueur and another in Mankato so the highway could run down the center of St. Peter. Now, the residents of St. Peter would rather it stayed on the East side of the Minnesota and not destroy their town. Lesson learned.

5
1
Macknife69Jul. 8, 13 9:53 PM

Great -- a grant from the federal government who can't pay the bills they have already.

9
9
boozlesJul. 9, 1312:43 AM

"Great -- a grant from the federal government who can't pay the bills they have already."____The only time the federal government came close to not paying its bills was when Republicans played chicken with the debt ceiling and our nations credit rating was downgraded (which cost us billions $)

8
14
boozlesJul. 9, 13 1:56 AM

The federal government never had any problems paying its bills until Republicans held the debt ceiling hostage last year having our national credit rating downgraded costing tax payers billions of dollars in extra interest charges.

5
15
rms316Jul. 9, 13 7:00 AM

Was this area not a flood plain when it was built? If it was, didn't anybody have the insight to raise the highway then? Just asking.

7
1
la55122Jul. 9, 13 7:47 AM

They are raising the southbound lanes due to flooding? The northbound lanes are closer to the river. I thought the major problem was mudslides, with rocks and trees on the southbound side. Seven times in 20 years. Doesn't say for how long. Raising the road a few feet won't stop the mudslides. Anybody else see a $10 million boondoggle?

4
3
mattaudioJul. 9, 13 7:52 AM

Seems like a waste of money to build highways and bridges simply because they can flood for a week once a decade. Lets say 169 is closed 20 days a decade due to flooding. Is this worth nearly $20,000 per day over the lifespan of the project? Will this return nearly $20,000 per day closed in additional tax revenue to the government who is paying for this? Nope.

7
4
reader2580Jul. 9, 1311:19 AM

You don't think driver's may spend $20,000 a day in extra gas and diesel, plus all the paid drivers who spend more time on the road and have to be paid more wages?

1
1
  • 1 - 10 of 10

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

question of the day

Poll: Who wins tonight's Game 4?

Weekly Question

ADVERTISEMENT