Bloomington votes to restore the Old Cedar Avenue bridge

  • Article by: Mary Jane Smetanka , Star Tribune
  • Updated: September 9, 2013 - 11:33 PM

Vote ended 20-year debate over fate of historic Bloomington span.

  • 13
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
rufflesSep. 10, 13 5:53 AM

I presume this will be a toll bridge so that all that use can pay for this renovation.

7
26
merkinSep. 10, 13 6:10 AM

It's about time the city got off their rears and got this bridge restored. They'll throw any amount of money at a shrine to consumerism, but can't pry open their wallets to spend one penny to preserve a little history and get people outdoors to exercise.

34
8
joe_mnSep. 10, 13 6:53 AM

the current design is ugly. no way anyone would allow a new bridge too be built with that design. but we can milk taxpayers for 14 million dollars to paint it?

7
26
merkinSep. 10, 13 6:58 AM

"I presume this will be a toll bridge so that all that use can pay for this renovation."

I'm sure they plan to put a toll booth in, but they're busy on the one for the Stillwater bridge at the moment. That bridge runs what? $700 million? It's going to be one heck of a big toll booth to cover that price tag!

20
4
sharkysharkSep. 10, 13 7:29 AM

That's a lot of money for a bridge to nowhere.

9
25
dtmonkeyboySep. 10, 13 7:44 AM

As a regular cedar avenue car commuter I am all in favor of anything that gets cars off the road. Already 6% of downtown workers commute by bike. If that number could rise to 20% it would be like adding an extra traffic lane.....and for a heck of a lot cheaper than actually building the lane. I've never understood why a car commuter would be opposed to projects like this.

25
6
wiseoracleSep. 10, 13 7:49 AM

Why can't you replace it, with an authentic replica for 6 mil; and save the difference for other trail work, etc.,. If it has rusted sooo bad a bicycle can't cross it - it seems dumb to rehab it. Feds don't understand rust?? Uff da!

16
6
stpaulisbestSep. 10, 13 7:52 AM

Any reason they can't just leave the old bridge alone, leave it standing, and just build the new one next to it? Then everyone's happy, right? The Feds are happy because they got to prevent a piece of history from being torn down (although it'll fall down by itself in a few years, but if the Feds want to prevent that they can pony up some cash), the city is happy because it gets a new bridge. The taxpayers are happy because they only have to come up with half the cost. So, what's the problem?

7
11
batman50Sep. 10, 13 8:00 AM

WHY????????????? We show no restraint on whizzing away money for nothing. Just like the one next to the 101 bridge in Shakopee. I witness about 3 people cross that thing a year and yes, the trail goes NOWHERE to the north and you still have to ride on the shoulder of 101 across the floodplain.

4
10
ddellwoSep. 10, 13 8:14 AM

As is usually the case with situations like this, the problem is that the "devil is always in the details" -- namely the fact that the city will be stuck with an ongoing maintenance trap in taking care of this thing over the coming decades. The cost of the rehab isn't all that bad (especially with the money on hand) -- it's just that it becomes like the proverbial family boat that you are continually throwing money at for a laundry list of reasons.

9
5

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