A measure of a St. Croix River bridge

Crossing the St. Croix River en route to his job in Maple Grove, commuter Tom Peterson fights through daily traffic jams at Stillwater's lift bridge that lead him to conclude that a new bridge, even at $668.5 million and counting, is long overdue.

"How do you justify that cost the way the economy is?" asked Peterson, a project manager at a road construction firm. "I'm not going to say that it doesn't matter, but there are days that I don't care what it costs, it's mere frustration. We're going to have to bite the bullet."

But Phil Krinkie, who heads the Taxpayers League of Minnesota, considers the bridge's cost outrageous and wants state officials to take another look.

"It bears further investigation as to what in the world are we building?" Krinkie said. "That's a huge number to me in relationship to what we've seen with other projects."

With its price tag accruing inflationary increases of $2 million each month past 2013, the proposed St. Croix River Crossing bridge has become the costliest in Minnesota history. That's six times the price of just a decade ago and more than twice what a forthcoming new bridge over the Mississippi River at Hastings will cost.

The seemingly endless and bitter war to build a bridge, one that would transform one of the region's most scenic and best-known waterways, is headed for a showdown Sept. 14 when arguments begin in a Sierra Club lawsuit to stop the bridge. The lawsuit attempts to block federal funding and licensing for the bridge on the premise it would ruin a scenic riverway and violate laws and policies that protect the river. The Sierra Club also contends that a new bridge would escalate contamination of the Lower St. Croix, which the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency now lists as impaired.

A river of red ink in Minnesota and Wisconsin could delay bridge construction for years in any case, said state Rep. Matt Dean, R-Dellwood. "I think barring some sort of a miracle I don't know how we're going to get to 2013 [construction] with deficits as far as we can see now," he said. "We're probably going to have the old bridge a lot longer than we're projecting."

The proposed four-lane bridge would launch from Oak Park Heights south of Stillwater and connect with Wisconsin on the bluffs above the river. The project also would involve significant reconstruction of Hwy. 36 in Oak Park Heights.

"It's our opinion that there are numerous alternatives that would save Minnesotans millions of dollars," said Joshua Houdek, the Sierra Club's land use and transportation organizer. "We're really pushing for something that would maintain the quality of life on the river and preserve the scenic corridor. It's our Yellowstone, really."

A long time in the works

Forty years ago, when Washington County was still very rural, a few public officials began debating a new bridge to cross the St. Croix River. They agreed that the lift bridge, built in 1931 for smaller vehicles and far fewer of them, couldn't handle a boom in traffic.

Arguments over the proposal flared and died many times. As they did, the new bridge's cost kept climbing. Eventually a group of "stakeholders" hammered out their differences -- or so they thought.

While the primary dispute of environment vs. growth has remained much the same over the years, what's changed is the burden on the two-lane lift bridge. An estimated 18,000 vehicles now cross it each day. Long lines of cars choke Stillwater's downtown streets as drivers jockey into position, sometimes gunning down the boulevards and waving one-fingered salutes.

Gary Kriesel, a Washington County commissioner who represents Stillwater, doesn't hide his contempt for the Sierra Club suit. "By delaying this, this causes significant environmental damage around Stillwater," he said. "What's disappointing to me is I think they're trying to control growth. I don't think that a new bridge is going to have any detrimental effect on the St. Croix River."

Commuters such as Peterson, who drives from his house in St. Joseph Township, Wis., have strong company in their desire for a new bridge. Various public officials argue that a new bridge is a necessary consequence of urban sprawl that has pushed eastward from the Twin Cities.

"It's a widespread view that the crossing is essential to the region," said Wisconsin legislator Sheila Harsdorf, R-River Falls. "The delays have been costly, and it's going to be on the backs of the taxpayers. It's a shame but that doesn't erase the need for a bridge."

Kriesel and other bridge supporters say the current plan results from diligent work among "stakeholders" who examined and discarded dozens of alternatives and overcame numerous disagreements to reach a consensus.

The increased cost, said engineer Todd Clarkowski at the Minnesota Department of Transportation, represents efforts to reduce cultural, historical and social problems a new bridge would impose. That includes wetlands replacement, erosion control and building a loop trail for walkers and cyclists along the river.

Mondale's opposition

An opposing alliance of environmentalists and taxpayer watchdog groups argue that a new bridge would spoil a precious national resource for the sake of road expansion.

"This is not a good investment for Minnesota people," said the Sierra Club's Jim Rickard. Instead of spending limited highway funds to benefit at most 20,000 Wisconsin residents, he said, Minnesota should expand heavily traveled Interstate 94 between Minneapolis and St. Paul.

The lawsuit, filed in 2007, hinges on the St. Croix's protection under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. That congressional designation, granted to the Upper St. Croix in 1968 and to the Lower St. Croix in 1976, was meant to shield the river's scenery and recreational popularity from development and pollution.

Walter Mondale, who as a U.S. senator representing Minnesota in 1968 ushered the St. Croix into the protective legislation, opposes the new bridge. His objections spring from his "deep commitment to the beauty and tranquility of that magnificent river and valley" and he said that's what drove Congress to protect the river.

"Perhaps rising costs pose new hurdles to its construction," Mondale, now a Minneapolis attorney, said recently.

Minnesota would pay more than Wisconsin -- currently about $379.7 million compared to $288.8 million -- because of extensive approach work needed to reconfigure Hwy. 36 where the new bridge would start at Oak Park Heights south of Stillwater, Clarkowski said. Each state would seek federal funds to reduce its share of the cost.

David Beaudet, the mayor in Oak Park Heights, said the bridge as currently designed could kill several businesses in his city and isolate others in downtown Stillwater.

The proposed bridge remains on a national "Road to Ruin" report compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense. The report criticizes projects that, in the advocacy group's opinion, waste taxpayer money, diminish natural areas and promote urban sprawl.

Erich Zimmermann, a senior policy analyst for the group, said that "old transportation ideas never die" because public officials devote years to their making. "It's been around so long you've got this institutional momentum that makes it inevitable," he said.

Kevin Giles • 612-673-4432