Bridge on the River (St.) Croix

From Taxpayers for Common Sense

Volume XVII No. 2: January 13, 2012

Several lawmakers want Minnesota and Wisconsin to spend upwards of $700 million to build a bridge that will carry just 18,000 cars a day when it opens. To put this in some perspective, the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis --- which collapsed in August 2007 --- cost $234 million to rebuild, crosses the Mississippi River, and carries 140,000 cars per day. The proposed Stillwater Bridge is the zeppelin of bridge projects. Like the German-made air transport of the early 20th century, the Stillwater Bridge would get you from point A to point B; but just as airplanes have become the mode of choice for flying the friendly skies, a better (and less expensive) alternative exists for rebuilding a bridge in Stillwater. The proposed bridge is a relic from a bygone era; the scale and cost of which are far out of proportion to the project at hand.

Nearly everyone agrees that a new bridge is needed to replace the aging, deficient lift bridge that currently carries traffic over the St. Croix River between Stillwater, MN (a St. Paul suburb) and tiny Houlton, WI (population: 386). They also agree to ignore that western Wisconsin is no longer the booming housing center it once was; that traffic over the existing bridge is declining; and that Houlton lies just eight miles from a major new bridge over the St. Croix on I-94.

Disagreement arises over the size and scope of the new bridge. To quell debate, a stakeholder consensus process was convened several years back. The result is sadly predictable: a plan to build the biggest, most expensive bridge alternative. We say predictable because trying to make everybody happy often turns into spending a lot of cash. A few years ago -- before the country had a $15 trillion debt and state governments were struggling to balance the books --- building the most expensive bridge possible would hardly get a second glance. But reality has shifted. If a less expensive bridge can accomplish the job, then the choice should be easy.


In another surprise, the bridge boondoggle enjoys bipartisan and bicameral support. The biggest bridge boosters are Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN). Contrary to her "Tea Party" rhetoric, Rep. Bachmann is full speed ahead on wasting tax dollars on this bridge. One preposterous claim she's made is that bringing home the bacon on transportation projects isn't really earmarking: "Advocating for transportation projects for ones district in my mind does not equate to an earmark." If you believe that, we've got a non-earmark "Bridge to Nowhere" to sell you. This convenient fiction enables her to fight for a bill that not only allows a bridge to be built (it needs an exemption because the St. Croix is a protected river under federal law), but also enables previously earmarked dollars to be spent and dictates the exact style of bridge to be built. People can dither over the minutiae, but this bill walks and talks like an earmark.


This may seem like a local issue, but federal taxpayers will be on the hook for $160 million (possibly more if cost overruns become an issue). Furthermore, wasting cash on the boondoggle bridge delays the repair of thousands of other deficient bridges in Minnesota and Wisconsin, increasing future costs. The new mantra of a nation that is swimming in debt has to be doing more with less. Another bridge alternative exists that would cost barely half of the current proposal and be much closer to the scale of the existing lift bridge. Our current debt crisis will only be solved when we work together to find cost-effective solutions to our problems. In an acrimonious year between the political parties in Washington, we cannot afford bi-partisanship that only occurs only when it comes to wasteful, parochial projects.

###

http://www.taxpayer.net/about/