QuoteMnDOT ready to build new Stillwater bridge if Congress acts
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fextras.mnginteractive.com%2Flive%2Fmedia%2Fsite569%2F2011%2F0812%2F20110812__110814StCroixBridge.jpg&hash=974e8bc8941b05b27e015b62cf02e24eeadcf8d0)
By Mary Divine
mdivine@pioneerpress.com
Updated: 08/13/2011 08:59:42 PM CDT
If Congress gives the green light this fall, Minnesota Department of Transportation crews will begin work immediately on a new four-lane St. Croix River bridge south of Stillwater.
MnDOT Commissioner Tom Sorel said that his agency is closely watching events in Washington and that a Sept. 30 deadline set by the agency for federal authorization for the project could be extended.
"It seems like they might be getting closer to a resolution, and we don't want to be a barrier to that by any means," he said. "I think we're probably the closest here we've ever been. As soon as we get the word, we're ready to go."
The $690 million project requires a federal exemption from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., have both introduced legislation that would pave the way for the bridge.
Klobuchar's bill also contains measures to offset the effects of a new bridge, including eliminating existing man-made structures, protecting the river bluff, restoring parkland and ensuring public boat access.
"It sure does feel like we're getting close when you look at the support that we have in Congress," Sorel said. "We're going to continue to work with them. We're trying to keep apprised of what they're doing and the timeline they need, and try to see how that will fit from an engineering perspective on how we build the project."
Klobuchar, whose bill got a hearing last month before the national parks subcommittee
of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said last week that she is working with Bachmann, Gov. Mark Dayton's office and MnDOT to "move this project forward as quickly as possible."
She said last month that the state government shutdown and the national debt-ceiling debate created some unexpected delays.
"The bridge has nothing to do with either of these issues, but it's just harder to get things through the legislative body," Klobuchar said.
Bachmann is hopeful that her bill will receive a markup and pass on to the House floor as soon as the August recess is over, said Becky Rogness, a spokeswoman for the congresswoman.
DRAWING UP DEADLINES
Dayton warned Bachmann in May that money for the bridge would be diverted to other state transportation projects if Congress didn't approve the plan by Sept. 30. A spokesman for Dayton's office last week referred calls regarding the deadline to MnDOT's Sorel.
"I think it's fair that the Sept. 30 timeline was out there - that's something we got to from a scheduling perspective and from an engineering perspective," Sorel said. "But we know that they seem to be getting closer and closer, and we need to be flexible with what they're doing as well."
In his May 3 letter to Bachmann, Dayton wrote that "decision deadlines were looming which the Minnesota Department of Transportation must meet in order not to lose available federal funds. The funding decisions about this project must be made by September 2011 or MnDOT will be unable to expend those funds within the required time period."
According to MnDOT officials, $203 million in state highway funds and $160 million in federal funding are at risk.
If the push for federal legislation is not successful, Sorel said, the money would be used for other projects that have yet to be determined. For now, he said, "We've been moving forward as if (the bridge) was going to be built."
Stillwater Mayor Ken Harycki said he expects Congress will approve the project within a few months.
"Anytime you have (Sen.) Al Franken, Amy Klobuchar and Michele Bachmann working on an issue together, I'm confident that we'll clear all the hurdles," he said.
AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN
The new bridge, first proposed decades ago, would replace the aging Stillwater Lift Bridge as the main Minnesota-Wisconsin crossing north of Interstate 94 and divert thousands of daily commuters from Stillwater's historic downtown, routing them instead to Minnesota 36 through Oak Park Heights. Supporters say a new bridge is needed to address traffic congestion in downtown Stillwater and accommodate growth in western Wisconsin.
Plans for the bridge came to an abrupt halt last fall after the National Park Service reversed an opinion it issued five years earlier and ruled that the bridge would conflict with the U.S. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
The St. Croix River was one of the first Wild and Scenic Rivers designated by Congress in 1968; the Lower St. Croix was added in 1972 through the efforts of the late Wisconsin Gov. and Sen. Gaylord Nelson and former Minnesota Sen. and Vice President Walter Mondale.
A group called the Sensible Stillwater Bridge Partnership supports construction of a lower, narrower, three-lane bridge that would cross the river diagonally from near the Oasis Cafe, just south of downtown Stillwater, to where the Stillwater Lift Bridge hits the bluff on the Wisconsin side of the river. The center lane of the three lanes would vary in direction depending on the time of day.
"We've put on the table what we think is a good-faith alternative that costs less than half of the proposed megabridge," said Peter Gove, a spokesman for the group.
Gove said he hopes MnDOT will ask the Park Service to review their proposal. "If this proposal were to be seriously considered, the need for this federal legislation may go away," he said.
But Bill Berndt, a consultant for the St. Croix River Coalition, a group formed to lobby for the four-lane bridge, said federal legislation is the only solution.
"Everybody is talking. Everybody is working hard," Berndt said. "The first obstacle to getting any kind of legislative action is, 'Do we have a team that is working well together and are they focused on the goal?' and that is absolutely the case - both in Washington and in Minnesota and Wisconsin."
The coalition is confident that Dayton's office and MnDOT officials "understand the timeline in Washington and understand that this project has great momentum," Berndt said. "Our goal is to move as quickly as possible. We've done our due diligence, now is the time for action."
http://www.twincities.com/washington/ci_18671357Yes, you read that right its going to take an act of
the US Congress to get the damn thing built. (stupid serria club et al) :pan:
Here is a detailed layout of the entire project:
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/stcroix/pdfs/status/Projectlayout-on%20aerial-7a-10.pdf
QuoteYes, you read that right its going to take an act of the US Congress to get the damn thing built. (stupid serria club et al)
Not the Sierra Club per se. Moreso the National Park Service saying no.
I think the real deadline moving forward with a new Stillwater bridge is the rapidly deteriorating lift bridge in place now. I would not be shocked at all if that old beast needed to be closed before a replacement is finished, even if they started tomorrow.
The impact of a new bridge on the St. Croix as a Wild and Scenic River is negligible compared to the enormous impact of urban sprawl that will follow this bridge once commuters can bypass the bottleneck of downtown Stillwater. The bridge will connect to a WI 64 freeway on the Wisconsin side and New Richmond will find that it has become a suburb, for better or worse. The wild and scenic nature of the St. Croix River from about Stillwater south is already degraded by existing development. The proposed bridge is aesthetically pleasing and would certainly distract from the big ol' power plant looms on the Minnesota side at this point along the river.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 22, 2011, 03:52:29 PM
The impact of a new bridge on the St. Croix as a Wild and Scenic River is negligible compared to the enormous impact of urban sprawl that will follow this bridge once commuters can bypass the bottleneck of downtown Stillwater. The bridge will connect to a WI 64 freeway on the Wisconsin side and New Richmond will find that it has become a suburb, for better or worse.
New Richmond is already a suburb.
This bridge just needs to get built. As you point out, the existing bridge is on its last legs. Build the new one, put a truck ban on the old one. Just get on with it already.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 22, 2011, 03:52:29 PM
St. Croix as a Wild and Scenic River
Exactly, its
soooo "wild and scenic" :-D:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dot.state.mn.us%2Fmetro%2Fprojects%2Fstcroix%2Forgimages%2Fl_KingPlantAerial.jpg&hash=277667b627f7d49df3def5ffbba54b598aac0130)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dot.state.mn.us%2Fmetro%2Fprojects%2Fstcroix%2Forgimages%2FSunnyside%2520Aerial.jpg&hash=d69616d8efe94e060fa1e74092976ed4587ba9a1)
Just a little ways upstream from Stillwater (like right around the corner), the river is absolutely gorgeous and a national treasure worth preserving.
The old bridge is too far gone even for just cars or bikes. It's not worth the cost to keep it operational, and it's a safety and navigational hazard left in place so it should be demo'ed.
It's also on the National Register of Historic Places (has been since '89) so plain ol' demo is pretty much out of the question.
Quote from: froggie on August 24, 2011, 06:35:34 AM
It's also on the National Register of Historic Places (has been since '89) so plain ol' demo is pretty much out of the question.
Should we just let it collapse into the river on its own accord?
:hmmm:
Just because it is on the 'National Register' does not protect a structure from demolition (or even significant modifications). IIRC, Soldier Field in Chicago was on the 'National Register' before its recent gutting and it has since been removed.
Mike
No, it doesn't protect it from demolition, but it does mean that all options for retaining the bridge need to be considered first. In this case, the proposed bike/ped loop trail fits the bill.
Quote from: mgk920 on August 24, 2011, 10:51:20 AM
Should we just let it collapse into the river on its own accord?
It would make for some good fish habitat.
Quote from: froggie on August 24, 2011, 01:40:13 PM
No, it doesn't protect it from demolition, but it does mean that all options for retaining the bridge need to be considered first. In this case, the proposed bike/ped loop trail fits the bill.
Only
if the bridge is deemed safe enough by engineers. Otherwise, it's scrap metal.
Speaking of the old bridge:
QuoteCorrosion on Stillwater Lift Bridge prompts lower weight limits
By Megan Boldt
mboldt@pioneerpress.com
Updated: 08/17/2011 08:37:10 PM CDT
State transportation officials are temporarily lowering weight limits on the Stillwater Lift Bridge after a routine inspection found corrosion on the aging bridge.
The load restrictions go into effect today.
Minnesota Department of Transportation inspectors found significant corrosion on a few spots on the bridge that crosses the St. Croix River into Wisconsin. MnDOT is reducing weight limits for trucks until repairs can be made.
"Although the bridge can safely handle day-to-day traffic, heavy loads will wear the bridge out more quickly," said MnDOT state bridge engineer Nancy Daubenberger. "Restricting the loads before and during the repairs will help prevent damage to the bridge."
The limits will be reduced to 24 tons from 28 tons for non-semitrucks and to 28 tons from 40 tons for semitrucks.
Maintenance crews will begin work on the bridge later this week, and repairs should take a week to 10 days. The bridge also is scheduled for repair in the fall of 2012.
Supporters of a replacement bridge at Stillwater have cited the frequency of repairs as a reason to build a new span across the river.
City officials say the 1931 Stillwater Lift Bridge was designed to handle 11,200 cars a day but averages more than 18,000 presently.
Summer traffic can mean as many as 25,000 vehicles going over the bridge daily.
Meanwhile, environmentalists have said a new freeway-style bridge would harm the federally protected riverway and encourage sprawl.
Last fall, plans for a new St. Croix River crossing came to an abrupt halt after the National Park Service reversed an opinion it issued five years earlier and ruled that the current plan would conflict with the U.S. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
The only way to get around that ruling is for Congress to intervene. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., have introduced legislation exempting the bridge from the act.
http://www.twincities.com/washington/ci_18701134Quote from: froggie on August 24, 2011, 01:40:13 PM
In this case, the proposed bike/ped loop trail fits the bill.
Quote from: Brandon on August 24, 2011, 07:56:48 PM
Only if the bridge is deemed safe enough by engineers. Otherwise, it's scrap metal.
Please watch VERY disturbing :
Here is a VERY high quality animation of the project:
Damn, that's a high-quality video rendition. I felt like I was actually driving down that highway, not living in a cartoon. It brought back for me the trips into Wisconsin for a beer-fueled float down the Apple River.
The current bill before Congress to exempt this project from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was introduced by Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar and Representative Michele Bachmann (yes, that Michele). Their relative political leanings are such that if they entered the same room they would simultaneously self-destruct.
Despite this uncharacteristic comity between the liberal and conservative, there continues to be opposition to any kind of a bridge. Furthermore, there is another proposal being floated by a local group for a three-lane bridge with a reversible-direction lane. They claim it would have less impact on the river and still be mostly adequate for traffic, given that the housing slump has, at least for now, put a serious crimp in the marketing of Wisconsin housing to workers in the Twin Cities.
This project is sooooo overdue. Please let it happen.
Nice quality of the video :)
As for the frontage roads along MN-36, did MNDOT studied the possibility to convert them into one-way service roads a la Texas style?
They should have animated in some Walmarts and spec homes on the Wisconsin side, because that's what's going to happen :D
I'm surprised there aren't plans to remove the last few stoplights on MN 36 near Stillwater.
QuoteAs for the frontage roads along MN-36, did MNDOT studied the possibility to convert them into one-way service roads a la Texas style?
No.
QuoteI'm surprised there aren't plans to remove the last few stoplights on MN 36 near Stillwater.
That's a MnDOT goal, but they don't have the money to do it, even with the bridge funding.
Quote
US Senate unanimously passes St. Croix River bridge bill
Associated Press
January 23, 2012 - 6:59 PM
The U.S. Senate has unanimously approved a bill clearing the way for a new bridge over the St. Croix River near Stillwater.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat, led efforts in the Senate to pass the bill. It now goes to the U.S. House.
Klobuchar says the bill has bipartisan support. The bill is co-sponsored by Democratic Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota and Wisconsin Sens. Herb Kohl, a Democrat, and Ron Johnson, a Republican.
The bill would exempt the proposed bridge from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
In a statement, Klobuchar says the current 80-year-old Stillwater Lift Bridge is "outdated for the needs of the region."
U.S. Reps. Keith Ellison and Betty McCollum of Minnesota say there's no need for such a big bridge as the one proposed.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/137929743.html :cheers:
Finally! Now hopefully it passes the house so that construction can finally get started!
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on November 10, 2011, 07:29:20 PM
Damn, that's a high-quality video rendition. I felt like I was actually driving down that highway, not living in a cartoon.
Oh, I could tell it wasn't reality due to the obvious lack of maroon minivans. I mean, really, this is supposed to be Minnesota, right? And what's with slower traffic flowing on the right? No way that's Minnesota!
ABOUT TIME!! I moved almost 6 years ago, shocked that this just finally got approved
QuoteOh, I could tell it wasn't reality due to the obvious lack of maroon minivans. I mean, really, this is supposed to be Minnesota, right?
I don't know which Minnesota you've visited...but the Minnesota I
grew up in didn't have maroon minivans...
As for the bridge, I'm mixed on this. On the one side, a 4-lane bridge is needed...but on the flip side, not only is the current plan hideously expensive (with MnDOT picking up the bulk of the tab), but it will encourage more sprawl development in St. Croix County, which I *DO NOT* see as a positive.
I don't think sprawl is such a bad thing. In a perfect world more business would be in the suburbs, but those people would also live close to work. Am I weird in that my girlfriend and I work 9 miles apart and got a place halfway in between? Here in Austin TX they decided that if they didn't build it, they wouldn't come. They came. Traffic is a mess, not enough roads.
Quote from: texaskdog on January 24, 2012, 03:36:10 PM
I don't think sprawl is such a bad thing. In a perfect world more business would be in the suburbs, but those people would also live close to work. Am I weird in that my girlfriend and I work 9 miles apart and got a place halfway in between? Here in Austin TX they decided that if they didn't build it, they wouldn't come. They came. Traffic is a mess, not enough roads.
businesses are already in the suburbs - that is the definition of sprawl!
Quote from: froggie on January 24, 2012, 01:36:16 PM
QuoteOh, I could tell it wasn't reality due to the obvious lack of maroon minivans. I mean, really, this is supposed to be Minnesota, right?
I don't know which Minnesota you've visited...but the Minnesota I grew up in didn't have maroon minivans...
The unofficial vehicle of Minnesota families:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi410%2Fkphoger%2Fvan.png&hash=5c409e74d2a17856e5c425dcd2d3fb35190461ef)
I was meeting a guy near Minneapolis once whom I'd never met before. I asked what kind of car he drove so I would recognize him. He replied, 'What everyone else in Minnesota drives, a maroon minivan'. I though he was crazy. Then, in the five miles I drove to meet him, I saw three maroon minivans. I became a believer... :nod:
Quote from: kphoger on January 24, 2012, 05:02:24 PM
I was meeting a guy near Minneapolis once whom I'd never met before. I asked what kind of car he drove so I would recognize him. He replied, 'What everyone else in Minnesota drives, a maroon minivan'. I though he was crazy. Then, in the five miles I drove to meet him, I saw three maroon minivans. I became a believer... :nod:
I find this especially funny, because I have a cousin who lives in the Cities with her family and guess what they drive?
lol
You can't make this stuff up.
Anyway, good to see Congress came to the conclusion that a beautiful new bridge won't detract from the scenery of the piles of fly ash on the bluff above the coal power plant on the river. I think I said before, the St. Croix River is a gorgeous national treasure that should be preserved as much as humanly possible... upstream from Stillwater.
Of course who am I kidding? For the rest of Congress, this is just some bridge, some where, that has bi-partisan, cross-state support so that's good enough for them.
If we thought St. Croix County, WI was 'growing' fast before, just wait until this double-edged sword gets built. We'll be lucky if the new bridge can be built before the old one falls into the drink and they've gotta get thru traffic out of Stillwater's cool little downtown. But it's going to make it much easier to cover northern St. Croix County with subdivisions. Blech.
Side note: can we please get some new goddamn aerials for the Twin Cities area on the commercial mapping sites? C'mon Google; get on it, Bing. I'm sick of looking at these 04-05 photos already!
This is enough to convince me to hit up Minneapolis before/after the Joliet meet. Gotta see the current bridge before it goes.
Won't the old bridge remain for non-motorized use?
Quote from: NE2 on January 24, 2012, 09:04:33 PM
Won't the old bridge remain for non-motorized use?
That is still the plan as far as the MnDOT site shows.
Quote from: on_wisconsin on January 24, 2012, 09:30:23 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 24, 2012, 09:04:33 PM
Won't the old bridge remain for non-motorized use?
That is still the plan as far as the MnDOT site shows.
It takes a LOT longer to cross without a motor. (:
QuoteIf we thought St. Croix County, WI was 'growing' fast before, just wait until this double-edged sword gets built. We'll be lucky if the new bridge can be built before the old one falls into the drink and they've gotta get thru traffic out of Stillwater's cool little downtown.
If the bridge goes, it'd actually improve Stillwater downtown traffic. But I'd hate to be in Hudson or be an I-94 commuter...
QuoteBut it's going to make it much easier to cover northern St. Croix County with subdivisions. Blech.
Yep.
People need to live closer to their jobs, just makes practical sense to begin with
The current bridge isn't going anywhere anytime soon regardless of what happens.
That was one of the original hang-ups on this project. The present bridge had do be demolished because no net increase in crossings over the St. Croix River was allowed. But the present bridge couldn't be demolished because it's a historic site. Eventually it was decided the present bridge would not longer be a "crossing" since it will become non-motorized. The plan is to keep it as long as it is structurally sound, which could be many decades. Some rehab and deferred maintenance was done on it several years ago when it was clear the new bridge wasn't going to be built anytime soon.
Quote from: texaskdog on January 25, 2012, 03:26:41 PM
People need to live closer to their jobs, just makes practical sense to begin with
Not always possible. You try selling a house and moving in this economic climate.
Quote from: Brandon on January 29, 2012, 04:17:15 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on January 25, 2012, 03:26:41 PM
People need to live closer to their jobs, just makes practical sense to begin with
Not always possible. You try selling a house and moving in this economic climate.
Well it doesn't have to be tomorrow, and really I meant in general people deliberately buy far away from their jobs...usually for no particular reason. Or they buy far away to get a good deal, then burn it all on gas. Companies could help by offering 4-day work weeks or flexible scheduling...but usually they don't.
Quote from: Mdcastle on January 27, 2012, 10:30:03 PM
The current bridge isn't going anywhere anytime soon regardless of what happens.
That was one of the original hang-ups on this project. The present bridge had do be demolished because no net increase in crossings over the St. Croix River was allowed. But the present bridge couldn't be demolished because it's a historic site. Eventually it was decided the present bridge would not longer be a "crossing" since it will become non-motorized. The plan is to keep it as long as it is structurally sound, which could be many decades. Some rehab and deferred maintenance was done on it several years ago when it was clear the new bridge wasn't going to be built anytime soon.
Too bad there wasn't an old bridge somewhere they could have gotten rid of...stupid laws.
Quote from: Mdcastle on January 27, 2012, 10:30:03 PMno net increase in crossings over the St. Croix River was allowed.
what kind of horse-hockey law is this??
Probably the same one that keeps them from building Interstates in Yellowstone :)
http://www.rivers.gov/wsr-st-croix-lower.html
Quote from: NE2 on January 30, 2012, 01:55:29 PM
Probably the same one that keeps them from building Interstates in Yellowstone :)
http://www.rivers.gov/wsr-st-croix-lower.html
The only time there needs to be interestates in Yellowstone is in our fictional highway section :):):)
Quote from: texaskdog on January 30, 2012, 01:46:54 PM
I meant in general people deliberately buy far away from their jobs...usually for no particular reason.
...
Companies could help by offering 4-day work weeks or flexible scheduling...but usually they don't.
I did it to get as far away from urban and suburban as I could.
Fortunately, I am able to work from home 1-3 days per week.
Quote from: mightyace on February 07, 2012, 11:30:54 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on January 30, 2012, 01:46:54 PM
I meant in general people deliberately buy far away from their jobs...usually for no particular reason.
...
Companies could help by offering 4-day work weeks or flexible scheduling...but usually they don't.
I did it to get as far away from urban and suburban as I could.
Fortunately, I am able to work from home 1-3 days per week.
That helps too! More companies should do that.
Keep in mind that the same technology that allows people to work from home (i.e. teleworking) also allows companies to outsource those jobs overseas.
I love when people say "buy American" when that is such a clouded statement these days.
I love national parks but beware this Nimby....letter I got today
Having lived there this bridge is way overdue
>
> Dear Friend of the National Parks,
>
> This week, the U.S. House of Representatives is considering
> legislation that threatens one of America's national
> parks. We need you to tell your representative to vote NO on
> S. 1134.
>
> http://my.npca.org/site/R?i=xrpCeagBvpJuGPJpKC9jCA
>
> At the same time park budgets face cuts, S. 1134 paves the way for the
> construction of a massive, freeway-style bridge over the St. Croix
> National Scenic Riverway in Minnesota. The St. Croix is a beautiful
> part of our National Park System, and was first protected under the
> Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, which protects other rivers all over
> America.
>
> A replacement bridge is needed, but not a mandate to build the most
> expensive bridge possible. The fiscally and environmentally
> irresponsible bridge mandated by this legislation would cost taxpayers
> $690 million to carry only 17,000 cars a day. To put that in
> context, the most expensive bridge ever completed in Minnesota, the
> I-35W bridge over the Mississippi River, cost $260 million only a few
> years ago to carry 140,000 vehicles per day.
>
> This bill also sets the worst possible precedent for circumventing
> protections and endangering other river parks around the country with
> mega-bridges or other inappropriate development. Never before in its
> more than 40-year history has the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act seen this
> kind of exemption.
>
> We need Congress to create monuments that protect our natural,
> cultural, and historic resources--not destroy them. We
> can--and must--do better than create this monument to waste.
>
> Take Action:
>
> http://my.npca.org/site/R?i=_mGvxmPqLIqLnjcexz8LBQ
>
> Tell your U.S. Representative to vote NO on S. 1134 and to not waste
> taxpayer dollars on a bridge that is too big, too expensive, and too
> destructive.
>
> Thank you for protecting the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway
> and speaking up for fiscal responsibility. Future generations
> will benefit from your action today.
>
> Sincerely
>
> Christine Goepfert
> Upper Midwest Program Manager
>
Post Merge: February 28, 2012, 09:15:50 PM
BTW this is not a national park, its a waterway, actually a river. They've made numerous changes already to appease these people. They make it sound like a freeway is going thru Yellowstone.
It's not a national park per se, but because of the St. Croix's status as a National Wild and Scenic River, NPS does have jurisdiction:
http://www.nps.gov/sacn/index.htm
Quote from: froggie on February 29, 2012, 06:13:56 PM
It's not a national park per se, but because of the St. Croix's status as a National Wild and Scenic River, NPS does have jurisdiction:
http://www.nps.gov/sacn/index.htm
True, but this woman is attempting to use shock value to get people to write letters. Getting people from other states to "defend this national park"
No links immediately handy, but I just got word that the USHouse just passed the bill to allow construction of the new Stillwater bridge by a 339-88 vote.
:cool:
Mike
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_20075864
Quote from: mgk920 on March 01, 2012, 11:09:40 AM
No links immediately handy, but I just got word that the USHouse just passed the bill to allow construction of the new Stillwater bridge by a 339-88 vote.
:cool:
Mike
Nice. Good job, peeps!
Regarding the 3 stoplights to remain, as well as the MN 36 corridor in general:
Besides the omnipresent lack of money issue there's ambivalence of the surrounding communites about what they want the highway to become. Oak Park Heights has the ability to kill the bridge project since it is not an interstate highway; the mayor opposes the project whereas the city council has been making noises that they could be bribed into it if Mn/DOT coughs up enough money to adddress their concerns about utility costs and such. I think Froggie told me that OPH opposed the interchanges because of impacts to local businesses, but now they're complaining the lights will cause traffic jams.
Farther to the west Mn/DOT allowed Washington County to pay for a light to be put in at Lake Elmo Ave. It was supposed to be temporary and was built to temporary standards but is turning out to be permanent as there's no local consensus about what kind of interchange or overpass to build. And the city of Lake Elmo, which is mostly McMansions on hobby farms, wants 36 to be a 45mph parkway with stoplights or roundabouts at all the intersections instead of a 65mph expressway. Next year a new interchange is going to be built at Hilton trail, eliminating a dangerous light. Drivers coming of I-694 appear to be on another freeway and then a light comes up around a corner.
It's unfortunate that, per my understanding of this law, we don't even have the option to build a reasonable affordable bridge anymore. We're stuck with the current $690 million freeway plan. Is that accurate?
Quote from: mattaudio on March 13, 2012, 01:46:56 PM
It's unfortunate that, per my understanding of this law, we don't even have the option to build a reasonable affordable bridge anymore. We're stuck with the current $690 million freeway plan. Is that accurate?
Well, MnDOT and WisDOT started with a 'reasonable(y) affordable' bridge, but had to dress it up and so forth to get it to pass muster of Congress (remember that the Saint Croix River there has a federal park designation).
Mike
In theory the Sierrra Club and all might consent to the three-lane "sensible" bridge, so it might not need the bypass law, but there's questions as to whether the 3 lane proposal would even be cheaper than the "extra-dosed" bridge; I heard about half of the cost of the new bridge is environmental mitigation, which would be needed in any case, and planning and design would have to start almost from scratch, and you have to factor in construction inflation. A generic beam bridge as proposed in 1995 (instead of a rather expensive extradosed design and other environmental mitigation) as in the original proposal would have been 120 million. It's kind of like what happened to the Bay Bridge, the original expensive proposal was stopped and the cheaper proposal wound up being even more expensive.
The other thing is that the city of Stillwater might veto a low-down bridge by their downtown due to the damage that the approach roads would cause to the parks and buildings and such by the river. If Stillwater says no, the project is dead. MN 36 is not an interstate so it would not go to binding arbitration like a project on an interstate does where the local municpality objects.
^ uh...
Quote
Obama signs St. Croix River Bridge bill
Blog Post by: Kevin Diaz
March 14, 2012 - 4:18 PM
President Obama signed legislation Wednesday to build the long-awaited St. Croix bridge.
The president's signature comes two weeks – nearly the maximum allowed – after Congress gave the needed environmental clearances for the $690 million project, the largest public works project in state history.
White House officials have not explained the time lag, but it will enter into the lore of the bridge, which has been delayed decades in the courts and in Congress.
Right down to the end, despite overwhelming votes in both the House and Senate, the bridge divided Democrats and administration officials alike. While pro-labor Democrats emphasized the jobs potential of the project, environmentalists in the Interior Department raised flags about granting such a conspicuous exemption to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, a landmark environmental law authored by native son Walter Mondale.
Even after the final vote in the House, bridge advocates like Michele Bachmann and Amy Klobuchar, from opposite sides of the partisan divide, felt it necessary to plead with Obama for his "prompt" signature.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/142677195.html :cheers:
Quote... the $690 million project, the largest public works project in state history.
This line raises two questions. I'm assuming that the "state" in question is Minnesota, since Wisconsin is in the middle of a public works project double the price of the Stillwater Bridge. But still, that doesn't sound right that it's the most expensive project in state history. What did it cost to upgrade Wayzata Blvd to I-394? What did the Crosstown Commons cost? What about the initial construction of freeways in The Cities? It seems like there has to have been a bigger project in the history of Minnesota. I smell hyperbole.
It's to the benefit of the anti-bridge people to make it sound like it's costing as much as possible, so they use the high end estimate and round it and make it sound like Minnesota is paying for the whole thing (and that only Wisconsinites will benefit), where in reality Wisconsin is paying for 45%, and have you ever counted license plates on a summer Friday night? They're mostly Minnesota. The official cost estimate is between $571 million and $676 million, which turns into a "$700 million dollar Bridge to Nowhere". I'm saddened by all the insults towards Wisconsinites being hurled out in various local boards, as well as the implication that Wisconsin is "nowhere"
But I think it is the biggest project when you count it as a single project and count it all in one state with non-inflation adjusted dollars. I-394 was about $500 million back when it was built (I don't know if there were seperate contracts), if you adjust for inflation it would easily cost more than the bridge as would probably untold other projects. Crosstown was $288 million. The Wakota bridge was $300 million broken down into several contracts, notably the contract for building a simple, bland 5 lane bridge for eastbound traffic with no environmental mitigation or approach roads was $60 million.
I-394 was about $450 million, but it was several different projects. To date, Crosstown is the single biggest contract in state history. This would change with the Stillwater bridge, assuming it goes as a design-build as I've heard is going to be the case (but don't quote me on that).
Quote from: froggie on March 15, 2012, 11:33:29 PM
This would change with the Stillwater bridge, assuming it goes as a design-build as I've heard is going to be the case (but don't quote me on that).
Doubtful, as design-build I believe is illegal in the state of Wisconsin. (for state funded projects)
Quote from: froggie on March 15, 2012, 11:33:29 PMI-394 was about $450 million, but it was several different projects. To date, Crosstown is the single biggest contract in state history. This would change with the Stillwater bridge, assuming it goes as a design-build as I've heard is going to be the case (but don't quote me on that).
Just for the hell of it, I went to MnDOT's EDMS site and downloaded all the I-394 contracts I had not previously downloaded as part of my long-term project to assemble a collection of pattern-accurate MnDOT sign panel detail sheets (for which, by the way, my page count is now in excess of 8,000).
If I exclude all contracts from before about 1980 and from after about 1995, all bridges-only contracts, and all contracts which have a SP number from CS 2789 but have a lead SP number from a lower CS (generally ones corresponding to US 12 between downtown and I-494 and also for intersecting routes like TH 100), then that leaves 35 contracts. This does not include the signing contracts, which I had hoovered up several years ago--for I-394 primary construction there were at least four.
Contract value records based on nominal dollars tend not to be very meaningful because of inflation; it is comparable to the finding that the top ten grossing films of all time were all made in the last twenty years. However, I believe the Crosstown Commons contract is safe from challenge by any older contracts because it was advertised several years after MnDOT switched to turnkey contracts around 2000. Previously it had been MnDOT's practice to advertise large numbers of smaller contracts for grading and drainage, surfacing, bridges, and installation of traffic appliances such as electric lights, signs, signals, guardrail, and TMS. As with I-394, this typically results in literally dozens of individual contracts, none of which will challenge any contract-value records in either real or nominal terms.
BTW, the TH 212 freeway was built (if memory serves) through a single design-build contract which divided the road into multiple sections (some sections corresponding to contiguous lengths of the finished road, and other sections corresponding to work entirely within certain functional disciplines which covered the entire facility--for instance, signing was handled as its own section). The overall contract value was about $240 million.
QuoteDoubtful, as design-build I believe is illegal in the state of Wisconsin. (for state funded projects)
However, MnDOT is lead on this project. Obviously wouldn't apply to the Wisconsin approach, but would to the bridge proper and on the Minnesota side.
Wisconsin Public TV's Here and Now program aired a segment about the Stillwater Bridge tonight, presenting two points of view on the project.
http://video.wpt2.org/video/2220140411
Quote from: kphoger on January 24, 2012, 05:02:24 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 24, 2012, 01:36:16 PM
QuoteOh, I could tell it wasn't reality due to the obvious lack of maroon minivans. I mean, really, this is supposed to be Minnesota, right?
I don't know which Minnesota you've visited...but the Minnesota I grew up in didn't have maroon minivans...
The unofficial vehicle of Minnesota families:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi410%2Fkphoger%2Fvan.png&hash=5c409e74d2a17856e5c425dcd2d3fb35190461ef)
I was meeting a guy near Minneapolis once whom I'd never met before. I asked what kind of car he drove so I would recognize him. He replied, 'What everyone else in Minnesota drives, a maroon minivan'. I though he was crazy. Then, in the five miles I drove to meet him, I saw three maroon minivans. I became a believer... :nod:
True story: I have two uncles who live in the Twin Cities, one in St Paul, and one in Jordan. When we were growing up, St Paul uncle had a maroon caravan, Jordan uncle had a maroon Aerostar. Never realized it was a "Minnesota thing" until now.
Quote from: on_wisconsin on March 16, 2012, 07:44:13 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 15, 2012, 11:33:29 PM
This would change with the Stillwater bridge, assuming it goes as a design-build as I've heard is going to be the case (but don't quote me on that).
Doubtful, as design-build I believe is illegal in the state of Wisconsin. (for state funded projects)
I thought design-build was used on the Marquette Interchange project.
Quote
MnDOT moves up St. Croix River bridge completion date by a year
By Mary Divine TwinCities.com-Pioneer Press
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fextras.mnginteractive.com%2Flive%2Fmedia%2Fsite569%2F2012%2F0410%2F20120410__120411Highway36OakParkHeights.gif&hash=430cbb06800597ceb48cfec275fc97cc4a92d15e)
A new bridge over the St. Croix River south of Stillwater could be open to drivers as early as the fall of 2016, a year ahead of schedule.
Construction is slated to start in the spring of 2013, and bridge construction would start in the fall ofthat year, Minnesota Department of Transportation officials said Tuesday night, April 10. Construction is expected to take three years.
Jon Chiglo, MnDOT's assistant commissioner, announced the new construction timeline at the Oak Park Heights City Council meeting.
"I think over time there's been a lot of discussion about design, and it's important for us to move into construction process and the construction phase of this job," said Chiglo, who is serving as project manager for the St. Croix River bridge project.
"On projects this size, you usually have funding constraints or you have environmental constraints," said Chiglo, who oversaw the reconstruction of the collapsed Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis. "We've gotten through the environmental process, and we've got the funding in place, and now it's time to move into construction and implementation phase."
A request for proposals for the bridge design went out in March, with submissions due by April 27, Chiglo said. A designer should be selected by mid-May.
"I've heard from a lot of people, 'Not in my lifetime,' " Washington County Commissioner Gary Kriesel said after the meeting. "This puts it in the reach of a lot of us older folks."
Council member Mark Swenson said: "We've got all the right things going now. Now is the time for us to come together and make it happen. There's no stopping it. As a group, this council needs to really work diligently with MnDOT to get things going in a positive way."
Oak Park Heights officials have raised concerns about the costs associated with the construction project. City officials say the city could need up to $20 million to improve, relocate and maintain water and sewer lines along the Minnesota 36 approach to the new four-lane bridge.
Adam Josephson, MnDOT's east metro manager, said Tuesday night that federal High Priority Program money would be available to pay 80 percent of the total cost of utility work. Under a scenario where most of the utilities are left alone, the city's costs would be less than $1 million, he said.
At issue is what utilities are affected by the bridge project, said council member Les Abrahamson.
"It's important that we agree which ones are impacted," he said. "If they are impacted, they're eligible for federal money - 80 percent federal, 20 percent local. If they're not impacted, it's 100 percent local."
City officials would like to move all the sewer and water pipes out of the state right-of-way for the project. "It makes no sense to put in new roadway over these aging pipes," Abrahamson said.
One solution might be for the city to keep the money it normally would contribute to the metro area's fiscal-disparities program to offset the city's costs associated with the new bridge, Abrahamson said. He has proposed seeking a change in state law that would enable the city to withhold the current contribution to the fiscal-disparities pool over a 20-year period. The city contributed $2.1 million to the fund in 2011 and received about $509,000.
"Oak Park Heights should not have a disproportionate share of the costs of this project," Abrahamson said. "This regional project needs a regional cost solution. The fiscal disparities fund is a regional fund meant to even out tax impacts, and that's what I'm looking to do. We pay into the fund, but we don't get out what we pay in."
The fiscal-disparities process was created in 1971 by the Legislature as a way for cities in the seven-county Twin Cities metropolitan area to share in commercial-industrial property tax growth under the principle that the area as a whole plays a role in fostering new development.
Rep. Kathy Lohmer, R-Lake Elmo, said she would be introducing a bill this week that would allow Oak Park Heights to use its contributions to fiscal disparities to fund portions of the Minnesota 36 project.
"We want to see what kind of reaction we get from folks, and see if we get any push-back and see if anyone has a problem with it," Lohmer said.
According to the Minnesota Department of Revenue, Bloomington got the OK from the Legislature to capture money from the fiscal disparities fund to help pay for road improvements for the Mall of America.
The law, passed in 1986, contained a provision that for property taxes payable in 1988 through 1999, the city of Bloomington would annually receive an amount equal to the interest paid on $80 million in bonds that the city sold for highway improvements at the mall site.
State law required Bloomington to repay the supplemental distribution from the fiscal disparities fund over a 10-year period from 2006 to 2015, said Eric Willette, the department's property tax research director.
In Bloomington's case, it was more of a loan, Abrahamson said. "In that case, there was huge growth in Bloomington once the Mall of America was built. They were more apt to capture and contribute more to the fiscal-disparities fund because they were growing as a result of that project."
But Oak Park Heights is "a little city that's primarily built out," Abrahamson said, "so we want to keep our own money in our own community for a while to pay for this regional project."
Oak Park Heights officials are hoping that the bonding bill will contain $1 million for the city to offset the costs of the project. The $1 million is in the House bonding bill; Lohmer said she is working to make sure it is in the Senate version as well.
Senate Majority Leader David Senjem "knows how important this project is," Lohmer said. "Everyone knows how important it is. At the end of day, we'll get something worked out. We just don't have it worked out yet."
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_20368510/mndot-moves-up-st-croix-river-bridge-completion :spin:
In the "all too predictable" file: Some farmers are whining about the freeway extension cutting across there land: http://www.startribune.com/local/east/150523225.html?page=all&prepage=2&c=y#continue
I think the Strib is grasping for straws for anti-bridge stories by now. How many people live in St. Croix country that won't have property taken, and won't the ones that do make out like bandits when Wal-Mart wants to buy the rest of it?
It appears it's going to be a non-issue, but does anyone know what Barrett's position on the bridge is- he's from Milwaukee which IRC is very anti-highway. If he has one, or if he would or even could do anything to stop it at this point?
I doubt anything Barrett had in store would've materially changed the project. I do remember him wanting to redirect funds earmarked for the I-39/90 widening elsewhere.
I do know that all 4 senators, both governors (one dem, one rep) and several reps from both parties (such as Kind-D La Crosse and Bachman-R Woodbury) want this bridge to happen. It's nice to see bipartisanship actually trying to work on something together.
Except everything for Minnesota Highways happens in slow motion (unless it involves a collapsed bridge)
Yes, this has been talked about since the early 1950s. The intent then was to build the "high bridge" by extending MN 96 across the river, that's why it was rerouted to the north of town at that time. That option was looked at again in the current round but was dismissed early on.
Quote from: Mdcastle on June 07, 2012, 12:46:36 PM
Yes, this has been talked about since the early 1950s. The intent then was to build the "high bridge" by extending MN 96 across the river, that's why it was rerouted to the north of town at that time. That option was looked at again in the current round but was dismissed early on.
when did they reroute 96? Did it used to be what is now County 64?
Quote from: texaskdog on June 07, 2012, 01:14:20 PM
Quote from: Mdcastle on June 07, 2012, 12:46:36 PM
Yes, this has been talked about since the early 1950s. The intent then was to build the "high bridge" by extending MN 96 across the river, that's why it was rerouted to the north of town at that time. That option was looked at again in the current round but was dismissed early on.
when did they reroute 96? Did it used to be what is now County 64?
Looking at my historic maps I don't believe 96 has ever been on any alignment between White Bear Lake and Stillwater other than its current one. I think what Monte was referring to was the proposed location for the St. Croix River crossing - I think early proposals included one where 96 and 95 meet. This would have been 1970s-80s vintage proposals; the current Hwy. 36 location has been the preferred one for over 20 years.
County Road 64 was the old alignment. It's kind of hard to see on inset maps, but it looks like MN 96 came in at angle, the went straight south, probably on Owen, then straight east, probably on Myrtle, to line up with the existing bridge. My 1949 official map shows the old alignment and my 1953 official map shows the new alignment.
Quote from: Mdcastle on June 08, 2012, 07:58:27 AM
County Road 64 was the old alignment. It's kind of hard to see on inset maps, but it looks like MN 96 came in at angle, the went straight south, probably on Owen, then straight east, probably on Myrtle, to line up with the existing bridge. My 1949 official map shows the old alignment and my 1953 official map shows the new alignment.
When I went to Century College we had a bike trip that way and had to ride up the Myrtle Street Hill. I remember it turned into 64 and then angled into 96. Never occurred to me back then it was likely an old alignment. Funny how ever since Stillwater hasn't tried to get traffic out of town :P
Monte's correct. 96 was rerouted onto its current alignment east of today's Gateway Trail (the old Soo Line tracks) in 1950. It's also possible that, for about a 2-3 year period in the mid-1930s, that 96 even used Kimbro Ave N and 88th St N in the area immediately east of the Gateway Trail, and was realigned in 1936 to avoid 2 crossings of today's Minnesota Zephyr tracks when the old Soo Line overpass was built
It's worth noting that if the Zephyr tracks aren't gone already they will be soon. After the operation shut down a few years ago the Minnesota DNR got a right of first refusal for the track ROW and closed on it this Feb, and they plan to remove the track as fast as possible. The train itself is still for sale and the DNR wants it off what is now their property by the time the track removal reaches the Stillwater.
Went to the open house today. A few things of note:
*No NIMBY/Environmentalist types to be seen. A few people a bit concerned about impacts to their propery and a contractor interested in bidding.
*Minnesota approach will be design-build. The bridge proper and the Wisconsin approach will not be.
*The interchanges on the Minnesota side were dropped both because of cost and direction from Oak Park Heights. My suggestion that this would turn into another US 169 in Bloomington was not well received.
*The extradosed design was not, in an opinion of one of the chief engineers, extravagant. It might cost a bit more to build, but besides looking cute there are also good engineering reasons to use that design, mainly the difficulty in building piers at that particular location and the traffic calming effect of the cables on the sides. He didn't want to comment on my question about how much a box girder or cable stayed bridge would have cost, but seemed impressed when I had mentioned I had been over the old Pearl Harbor bridge, the Zakkim Bridge, Sunshine Skyway, and Great River bridges- he said most drivers don't take note of what kind of bridge they're driving over. He wasn't allowed to say exactly who was involved, but said they visited the new Pearl Harbor bridge and are using some of the people involved as resources.
*Got copies of the overall project and loop trail animations. They're available online, but the versions on disc are 720P high def.
*The barges are out doing test borings. Also visited the Oak Park Heights "ghost neighborhood" where the houses have been bought out years ago and removed for the MN 95 interchange. It's wildly overgrown, most of the streets are blocked off and decaying and only the Shoddy Mill is left.
*The curve in Wisconsin will have a 70mph design speed. Posted speed on the bridge itself will be 55mph.
Mdcastle, the interchanges on the Minnesota side that you mention, does that include the MN 95 interchange or is it just the ones proposed west of there on MN 36?
West of there. The interchange at MN 95 is included either way. MnDOT looked earlier at a couple of local interchanges in the section between MN 95 and MN 5...this is what was dropped.
This is yet another example of Mn/DOT doing something right (the bridge) and lousy (the approach roads) due to funding problems and local interference.
I don't think the MN 95 junction could have been an at-grade intersection even if they wanted to cheapen the project or the city wanted it due to the substantial grade difference. In fact I find the choice of a standard diamond odd since the east ramps will have to be on bridges connecting to the main bridge, MN 95 will go under the main bridge, not a seperate structure. I'm not sure if these ramps count as the bridge or the Minnesota approach.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi699.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv358%2FMdcastleman%2FIMG_0532.jpg&hash=456bfbd876d6887e8875a5c3d1087cec0e2e01dd)
The Shoddy Mill and warehouse. Myself and a lot of people think paying several hundred thousand dollars to move it is a waste of money, but it's a requirement for getting the bridge built.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi699.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv358%2FMdcastleman%2FIMG_0533.jpg&hash=017c72b3e0e0075f5b1b932987a5fd19a24d0bc2)
Area of Oak Park Heights near the mill already bought out and removed for the new mainline and MN 95 interchange.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi699.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv358%2FMdcastleman%2FIMG_0535.jpg&hash=eb2c981497b1f80e07cf851f3169dfbfbdde8db7)
Soil testing
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi699.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv358%2FMdcastleman%2FIMG_0537.jpg&hash=d3425f77fbcd6df78aabfb8a2ef1794d44bfa294)
Where the new WI 35 interchange will be. Wisconsin Dot already owns this land but is apparently leasing it back to farmers for the time being.
I am assuming that WI-35 will be routed with WI-64 to bypass...St. Joseph?
The Wisconsin interchange location is about a mile east of Houlton on County E. That road will be bypassed slightly south of a built up area, going north WI 35 will cross over WI 64, than take a right turn at the new "T" instersection south of Houlton, taking over County E until the interchange.
Also of note, Wisconsin still has ROW to acquire between the interchange and the bridge, the ROW they acquired previously reflected the Braun alignment which is about a half mile north or where the bridge will be now, and some of it will be sold back to the land owners at the conclusion of the project.
Quote
Omaha firm wins bridge contract
June 26, 2012 - 8:54 PM
The national engineering firm HDR has been selected to lead the design effort for a new St. Croix River bridge, the Minnesota and Wisconsin state transportation departments said Tuesday.
The $14.2 million contract will refine the extradosed-type design selected by a community stakeholder group for construction, the agencies said. An extradosed bridge is a hybrid of a concrete box girder structure and a cable-stayed structure.
The four-lane bridge will span the St. Croix River between Oak Park Heights and St. Joseph, Wis., and will retire the Stillwater Lift Bridge, built in 1931. Both bridges will become part of a loop trail for pedestrians and cyclists.
When complete, the St. Croix Crossing will be the second extradosed bridge in the United States. The first is being constructed in Connecticut.
One of the four unsuccessful design bidders was URS Corp., which paid a $54.2 million settlement after the Interstate 35 bridge collapsed in 2007. The company settled a lawsuit in 2010 after victims alleged that URS had failed as a consultant to detect the bridge's structural flaws. URS also had designed the Martin Olav Sabo Bridge in Minneapolis where cables broke in February.
The new St. Croix bridge, estimated to cost between $280 million and $310 million, will be part of a larger project that will include the trail, expressways on either end of the bridge, and historic and environmental mitigation efforts. The total cost, shared by both states, is estimated between $580 and $676 million.
Design work will take about a year with construction anticipated to begin in fall 2013. Assisting HDR will be the firm Buckland and Taylor, the agencies said. HDR, with headquarters in Omaha, employs about 200 people in Minneapolis, St. Paul, Rochester and Thief River Falls, Minn.
HDR is also designing the Cayuga Bridge on Interstate 35E in St. Paul.
A second major contract -- for peer review of HDR's design -- will be awarded next. The URS firm is one of seven finalists for that contract.
http://www.startribune.com/local/east/160428535.html :coffee:
QuoteStillwater bridge open house tonight in New Richmond
By Andy Rathbun arathbun@pioneerpress.com TwinCities.com-Pioneer Press
An open house about the St. Croix River Crossing Project will be held Monday, July 9, in New Richmond, Wis.
Representatives from the Minnesota and Wisconsin departments of transportation will be on hand to answer
questions and listen to concerns.
The event is from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m. at New Richmond City Hall, 156 E. First St.
The open house is the seventh to be held recently.
The project will replace the aging Stillwater Lift Bridge with a new river crossing connecting Oak Park Heights,
Minn., and St. Joseph, Wis. The lift bridge will be converted to a pedestrian and bicycle crossing.
For more information, visit www.mndot.gov/stcroixcrossing or the project's facebook page,
www.facebook.com/saintcroixcrossingmndot.
To request an American Sign Language or foreign language interpreter, or to request other accommodations, call
715-833-9814. Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals can call the Wisconsin Relay Service toll-free at 711 or
email chris.ouellette@dot.wi.gov.
Andy Rathbun can be reached at 651-228-2121. Follow him at twitter.com/andyrathbun.
http://www.twincities.com/wisconsin/ci_21036562/stillwater-bridge-open-house-tonight-new-richmond
It should be noted that HDR was involved in the Q-Bridge, the only other extradosed bridge in the US, as well as several Canadian ones. Since URS didn't get the contract presumably it'll stand up to the wind blowing on the cables.
I read the proposal last night, one of the instersting things was they brought up the idea of splitting the construction contract between the foundations and the bridge proper. That would allow more MN companies the opportunity to bid on them, and speed construction since they could start building the foundations before every last detail of the bridge design was finalized.
Per the visual quality manual, the piers will be lit with LED floodlights, though more subtly than the I-35W bridge, and the roadway will also have LED lighting. The cables will not be explicitly lit, but on the south cables the spill from the roadway lighting will illuminate them. Most of the visualizations show the bridge a stark white, but it's more likely to be a muted off-white.
MnDOT now has a construction webcam up on there site: http://www.earthcam.com/clients/mndot/stcroixcrossing/index.php?cam=archive
It was just announced today that the bridge construction is going to start a year earlier than originally planned. Construction on the piers will start in Spring 2013 instead of Spring 2014.
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/opencms/export/nr/modules/news/news_3661.html_786229440.html
Quote from: tchafe1978 on October 09, 2012, 10:39:06 PM
It was just announced today that the bridge construction is going to start a year earlier than originally planned. Construction on the piers will start in Spring 2013 instead of Spring 2014.
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/opencms/export/nr/modules/news/news_3661.html_786229440.html
(Imagining the collective snot snit from the enviro-wacko crowd....)
:-D
Mike
Now if we can get the Willits Bypass built...
I'm presuming the enviro-wackos have run out of legal options with respect to Stillwater, I've heard absolutely zero rumors floating around about any future legal action. I still try to comment every time the story comes up in the Strib, though I think I'm wasting my time. There was one reader that objected to spending a fraction of the money on the Hastings Bridge because "he'll never use it". I told him to find an island to move to if he doesn't want to be part of society.
QuoteMnDOT prepares Stillwater office for St. Croix bridge work
By Mary Divine mdivine@pioneerpress.com TwinCities.com-Pioneer Press
State workers plan to move to Stillwater soon to oversee construction on the St. Croix River bridge and Minnesota 36.
About 15 Minnesota Department of Transportation employees are expected to move to 1862 S. Greeley St. on March 1. The one-story office building -- one of three former UFE Inc. manufacturing company buildings -- also will house
outside employees, said Mary McFarland, a spokeswoman for MnDOT.
"It will be home base for everybody working on the project," McFarland said Tuesday, Jan. 29. "They are painting it
now and setting up cubicles. The idea is to have contractors and consultants along with all the MnDOT staff there."
The 14,000-square-foot building is being sold to the Washington County Historical Society for use as a heritage
center. The society, which is paying $795,000 for the building, expects to take possession at the end of February,
said Brent Peterson, the society's executive director.
MnDOT is expected to rent the building from the society for almost four years; rental income will help pay for the
purchase, Peterson said.
The building formerly housed part of manufacturing company UFE, which was founded in 1953 as United
Fabricators and Electronics. UFE moved to Osceola, Wis., in 2009 and was sold in 2011.
The site was eyed by the Stillwater Area School District in 2010. The district agreed to pay $3.2 million for the three
buildings on the UFE site, with plans to create an Early Childhood Family Center there, but backed out after PCE
contamination was found.
The 1862 building is south of where the contamination was found, Peterson said.
The St. Croix bridge project, which includes building three miles of four-lane highway on Wisconsin 35 and
rebuilding about three miles of Minnesota 36 and 95, is estimated to cost $580 million to $676 million. The bridge is
expected to open to traffic in fall 2016.
Crews will begin building the bridge piers in the water in the spring; the foundation work must be done by June 2014
and may be done earlier, McFarland said.
Work on Minnesota 36 and 95 will start in April. MnDOT crews will be rebuilding and moving frontage roads,
adding turn lanes at Oakgreen/Greeley and Osgood avenues along Minnesota 36, and improving stormwater ponds.
They also will create a bike trail along the south Minnesota 36 frontage road to connect with a new 4.7-mile loop
trail that will cross the Stillwater Lift Bridge once it's closed to vehicle traffic.
In addition, the Beach Road bridge over Minnesota 36 will be replaced; the new bridge will be located a little to the
west of the current bridge and will include two lanes and a bike trail, McFarland said.
Plans also call for three signals to be added to Minnesota 95 -- one near the Allen S. King plant at Sixth Street
North/Pickett Avenue in Bayport
http://www.twincities.com/wisconsin/ci_22475336/mndot-prepares-stillwater-office-st-croix-bridge-work
About 15 Minnesota Department of Transportation employees are expected to move to 1862 S. Greeley St. on March 1.
Sounds like a great reality show 15 DOT employees sharing a house
Quote from: texaskdog on February 08, 2013, 08:18:31 AM
About 15 Minnesota Department of Transportation employees are expected to move to 1862 S. Greeley St. on March 1.
Sounds like a great reality show 15 DOT employees sharing a house
"This week on
Road House...."
:D
go to this link for a description of the project http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWoHRDqhDuU by the way if anyone knows how I can get this application let me know! :biggrin:
^ You are a little late on that one: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5160.msg122702#msg122702
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Anyway, there has been some rumbling out of the MN Capitol that the Legislature may try to turn this into a toll bridge. http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/191552151.html
I have a feeling that this rhetoric will calm down. Also, tolling the bridge would require Wisconsin to agree and may even require new environmental studies. If anything should be tolled, which I don't agree on, an extremely expensive bridge that has real traffic benefits isn't a bad place for to do so, but I don't see this one happening.
Which is kinda too bad. IMO, this bridge is an excellent candidate for tolling. It's a freeway facility (at least across the river). There are nearby alternative routes (I-94 for cars, the old bridge for bikes/peds). It's a VERY expensive project that overwhelms the more traditional funding streams. Plus it saves Chapter 152 Program funds for other needed bridges, which is important because if the Legislature doesn't pass additional transportation revenue this session, I can easily see MnDOT diverting more Chapter 152 Program funding from other (and arguably more important) bridges to the Stillwater bridge.
Quote from: on_wisconsin on February 19, 2013, 11:02:30 PM
^ You are a little late on that one: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5160.msg122702#msg122702
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Anyway, there has been some rumbling out of the MN Capitol that the Legislature may try to turn this into a toll bridge. http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/191552151.html
In Texas we'd make it toll and the money would go to Spain
There is a bill in the Minnesota Legislature this year to create a new Legislative Route (339, the next number in sequence) that looks like it is for the St. Croix River bridge. I wondered why, since this would simply replace the existing crossing in the trunk highway system, but then I looked at the description for Constitutional Route 45 (which is carried by MN-36 west to the junction with MN-5). The description reads:
QuoteRoute No. 45. Beginning at a point on the west bank of the St. Croix River at Stillwater and thence extending in a southwesterly direction to a point on the easterly limits of the city of St. Paul, affording Stillwater, Lake Elmo, St. Paul and intervening and adjacent communities a reasonable means of communication, each with the other and other places within the state.
Turns out the new bridge is in Oak Park Heights, not Stillwater, and thus can't be the eastern terminus of Route 45. Descriptions of Constitutional Routes can't be amended, so it is necessary to create the new route. I wonder whether MnDOT will continue to maintain Chestnut Street up to the old lift bridge or whether MN-95 is close enough to the river to be that aforementioned point on the west bank of the river.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on March 16, 2013, 09:32:49 AM
There is a bill in the Minnesota Legislature this year to create a new Legislative Route (339, the next number in sequence) that looks like it is for the St. Croix River bridge. I wondered why, since this would simply replace the existing crossing in the trunk highway system, but then I looked at the description for Constitutional Route 45 (which is carried by MN-36 west to the junction with MN-5). The description reads:
QuoteRoute No. 45. Beginning at a point on the west bank of the St. Croix River at Stillwater and thence extending in a southwesterly direction to a point on the easterly limits of the city of St. Paul, affording Stillwater, Lake Elmo, St. Paul and intervening and adjacent communities a reasonable means of communication, each with the other and other places within the state.
Turns out the new bridge is in Oak Park Heights, not Stillwater, and thus can't be the eastern terminus of Route 45. Descriptions of Constitutional Routes can't be amended, so it is necessary to create the new route. I wonder whether MnDOT will continue to maintain Chestnut Street up to the old lift bridge or whether MN-95 is close enough to the river to be that aforementioned point on the west bank of the river.
I am amazed that it can't be amended when the new Stillwater Birdge would be the logical carrier of Hwy 36 and since the old 36 is already cosigned with Hwy 95 except for the old Stillwater Bridge. That just seems very dumb.
You're amazed that the legislature can't amend the constitution? This is grade-school stuff.
NE2, Amendments to the US Constitution have been proposed and passed as well as even repealed. I don't get why Minnesota should be any different.
Sure, they could put the question to the voters. It would be pretty pointless, but who cares?
Quote from: NE2 on March 17, 2013, 03:56:56 PM
Sure, they could put the question to the voters. It would be pretty pointless, but who cares?
The Babcock Amendment to the Minnesota constitution in 1920 set forth specific route descriptions, including termini and towns served, for 70 routes. Since then, the Legislature has added a number of additional routes (since it will be up to 339), which can be amended or repealed like any law. The fix would be a technical amendment to the state constitution to convert the constitutional routes to statutes, but I have never heard of a plan to do this. There might be some opposition from rural areas of the state that would be concerned the state could turn the highways serving their area over to local government. Much of the rest of the voting public wouldn't understand the issue.
How about they just have a bill that Stillwater annexes Oak Park Heights as revenge for all their interference and attempts to stop the project.
My prediction is that Chestnut street gets turned back, and new secret routes are created for the OPH frontage roads and the old lift bridge itself.
QuoteNE2, Amendments to the US Constitution have been proposed and passed as well as even repealed. I don't get why Minnesota should be any different.
A) because amendments to the Minnesota Constitution must go to the voters, and is a 2-year process to do so. B) amending the Constitution for such a mundane situation like this is not a good way to do business. Why not amend the state Constitution every time some minor trivial thing comes up then?
QuoteHow about they just have a bill that Stillwater annexes Oak Park Heights as revenge for all their interference and attempts to stop the project.
Because any such annexation would require approval of Oak Park Heights. Figure. The. Odds.
QuoteMy prediction is that Chestnut street gets turned back, and new secret routes are created for the OPH frontage roads and the old lift bridge itself.
More likely, Chestnut St would get a secret route rather than get fully turned back. They'd have to keep continuity in C.R. 45.
those stupid consitutional routes...why not just get rid of the whole constitutional route system?
Quote from: texaskdog on March 18, 2013, 10:39:07 AM
those stupid consitutional routes...why not just get rid of the whole constitutional route system?
Agreed. One amendment, saying that all state highways are hereafter under the jurisdiction of MnDOT and that the Babcock Amendment is hereby repealed.
Quote from: froggie on March 18, 2013, 08:32:38 AM
QuoteNE2, Amendments to the US Constitution have been proposed and passed as well as even repealed. I don't get why Minnesota should be any different.
A) because amendments to the Minnesota Constitution must go to the voters, and is a 2-year process to do so. B) amending the Constitution for such a mundane situation like this is not a good way to do business. Why not amend the state Constitution every time some minor trivial thing comes up then?
Froggie, let me get this straight as to how Minnesota works. Any highway that is built by the state is added to the state's constitution because of the Babcock Amendment? So every single route, if I am understanding this correctly, has to be voted on by not just the legislature but the public as well? Is this correct? If that is the case, the Babcock Amendment is completely silly. And yes having the public vote on such things is very trivial. But I have never heard of this kind of a process in any other state.
I know states do public hearings for proposals and then the road is voted on by the legislature but the public has no voting aspect to the highway proposal. It just seems that it should be a much more simple process to say "Ok. Since this road has now become a bypass of the town, the new route is the current number and the old route if need be becomes like a Business Route of the current number." And since MN 95 is currently cosigned with all of this except for the little stub leading to the Old Lift Bridge, the state's mileage numbers would not drastically change nor would Stillwater be losing access to the state highway system.
When Minnesota built the bypasses of Wilmar and Marshall on MN 23, did the Babcock Amendment force a public vote to get the route number moved?
No.
The first 70 routes are constitutional routes covered by the Babcock amendment and can't be changed. If you look at a vintage map they still are the major through routes. As a side note 58 is the last of the original 70 numbers that wasn't changed or extended.
The next 200+ (generally added in two major waves and two minor waves) are legislative routes and can easily be changed by the legislature. MN 66 (LR 256) and MN/LR 235 are up for deletion in bills this year.
They tried to change a constitutional route when MN/CR 42 was extended to I-90, but later undid it and assigned the extension LR 338.
The Willmar and Marshall bypasses always have had portions within city limits so the numbering charades as is happening in Stillwater weren't necessary. MN 361 was created so CR 1 could continue to serve Pine City and Rush City, but was removed when those city limits reached I-35 so CR 1 could stay on the freeway.
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 18, 2013, 09:23:34 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 18, 2013, 08:32:38 AM
QuoteNE2, Amendments to the US Constitution have been proposed and passed as well as even repealed. I don't get why Minnesota should be any different.
A) because amendments to the Minnesota Constitution must go to the voters, and is a 2-year process to do so. B) amending the Constitution for such a mundane situation like this is not a good way to do business. Why not amend the state Constitution every time some minor trivial thing comes up then?
Froggie, let me get this straight as to how Minnesota works. Any highway that is built by the state is added to the state's constitution because of the Babcock Amendment? So every single route, if I am understanding this correctly, has to be voted on by not just the legislature but the public as well? Is this correct? If that is the case, the Babcock Amendment is completely silly. And yes having the public vote on such things is very trivial. But I have never heard of this kind of a process in any other state.
I know states do public hearings for proposals and then the road is voted on by the legislature but the public has no voting aspect to the highway proposal. It just seems that it should be a much more simple process to say "Ok. Since this road has now become a bypass of the town, the new route is the current number and the old route if need be becomes like a Business Route of the current number." And since MN 95 is currently cosigned with all of this except for the little stub leading to the Old Lift Bridge, the state's mileage numbers would not drastically change nor would Stillwater be losing access to the state highway system.
When Minnesota built the bypasses of Wilmar and Marshall on MN 23, did the Babcock Amendment force a public vote to get the route number moved?
No.
The Babcock Amendment of 1920 (named after the Highway Commissioner) established the Trunk Highway system and a means for paying for it. In return, the voters got a guarantee that certain highways would be in the Trunk Highway system. Those are the 70 constitutional routes.
After that, the Legislature established additional routes. Like any law, these can be amended and repealed. Only the 70 are sacrosanct, and MnDOT has clever ways of working around them when they turn back some historic sections of highway like Route 50 between Farmington and Lakeville (original U.S. 55, later U.S. 65 and finally MN-50). They simply route the Constitutional Route along a different section of trunk highway that ends up in the same place as the other route.
Any new section of trunk highway not already enacted into law as a Legislative Route has to be added. Thus, the need to add a short spur between Route 45 (MN-36) and the Wisconsin border for the new St. Croix River bridge. But the voters don't need to get involved. It's just a law. Steve, the guy from New Jersey, nailed it. As I said many messages above, the Legislature could propose an amendment to eliminate the Constitutional Routes and make them statutes. More than 50% of voters casting votes (not just on this issue) would have to approve for it to pass.
The constitutional routes have to be state maintained per the state constitution, but they don't have to keep the same route number right? So MN-36 is going to be used on the new bridge.
QuoteThe constitutional routes have to be state maintained per the state constitution, but they don't have to keep the same route number right?
No. Monte hinted at this earlier, but the Constitutional/Legislative Route numbers do not have to match the numbers signed in the field. Old Steve (i.e. High Plains Traveler) highlights this very well on his Minnesota route webpages.
OK thanks Froggie. Here is the web-page you mention.
http://www.steve-riner.com/mnhighways/legal.htm
I was thinking more specifically of Old Steve's route listings, where he breaks down which Constitutional/Legislative routes are associated with a given signed route. But yes, that page shows the basic legal breakdown.
Quote from: froggie on March 19, 2013, 10:59:36 AM
I was thinking more specifically of Old Steve's route listings, where he breaks down which Constitutional/Legislative routes are associated with a given signed route. But yes, that page shows the basic legal breakdown.
Ask and you shall receive!!!
http://www.steve-riner.com/mnhighways/conrtes.htm
I'm very familiar with Steve's webpages...have contributed material over the years.
I was referring specifically to the route pages like this (http://www.steve-riner.com/mnhighways/r1-25.htm) or this (http://www.steve-riner.com/mnhighways/r152-218.htm). Notice the entry on most route listings for "Constitutional/Legislative Route(s):"?
I know you have done so froggie. I was just providing a link for the other reader's reference.
Quote from: froggie on March 19, 2013, 09:51:36 AM
QuoteThe constitutional routes have to be state maintained per the state constitution, but they don't have to keep the same route number right?
... Old Steve (i.e. High Plains Traveler) ...
I really prefer to be known as "Mature Steve".
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on March 19, 2013, 01:57:00 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 19, 2013, 09:51:36 AM
QuoteThe constitutional routes have to be state maintained per the state constitution, but they don't have to keep the same route number right?
... Old Steve (i.e. High Plains Traveler) ...
I really prefer to be known as "Mature Steve".
that's kinda implied - especially after that incident where Alps flung his feces.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 19, 2013, 02:11:37 PM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on March 19, 2013, 01:57:00 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 19, 2013, 09:51:36 AM
QuoteThe constitutional routes have to be state maintained per the state constitution, but they don't have to keep the same route number right?
... Old Steve (i.e. High Plains Traveler) ...
I really prefer to be known as "Mature Steve".
that's kinda implied - especially after that incident where Alps flung his feces.
Funny comment, since I'm the one who uses a gorilla for his Facebook avatar.
Okay I'll be old Steve then
Quote from: froggie on March 19, 2013, 09:51:36 AM
QuoteThe constitutional routes have to be state maintained per the state constitution, but they don't have to keep the same route number right?
No. Monte hinted at this earlier, but the Constitutional/Legislative Route numbers do not have to match the numbers signed in the field. Old Steve (i.e. High Plains Traveler) highlights this very well on his Minnesota route webpages.
Froggie, looking at the link that was provided, it reads to me that these Constitution Routes became Statutes in the 1960s. And "When MnDOT turns back a section of road, the legislation that authorized that portion may or may not be modified or removed to reflect the change in jurisdiction."
So if this is the case, why would there need to be a public vote on a change to an endpoint of a trunk highway? If I read this correctly, it looks like it can be simply done by the legislature at the time when a new roadway is completed, such as the case with the new Stillwater Bridge. Couldn't MnDOT just turn over control of the short street leading to the old bridge to local control at that point and the new bridge become MN 36 when the bridge was approved by the legislature?
What am I missing?
I'll be Steve Dry.
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 19, 2013, 07:18:15 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 19, 2013, 09:51:36 AM
QuoteThe constitutional routes have to be state maintained per the state constitution, but they don't have to keep the same route number right?
No. Monte hinted at this earlier, but the Constitutional/Legislative Route numbers do not have to match the numbers signed in the field. Old Steve (i.e. High Plains Traveler) highlights this very well on his Minnesota route webpages.
Froggie, looking at the link that was provided, it reads to me that these Constitution Routes became Statutes in the 1960s. And "When MnDOT turns back a section of road, the legislation that authorized that portion may or may not be modified or removed to reflect the change in jurisdiction."
So if this is the case, why would there need to be a public vote on a change to an endpoint of a trunk highway? If I read this correctly, it looks like it can be simply done by the legislature at the time when a new roadway is completed, such as the case with the new Stillwater Bridge. Couldn't MnDOT just turn over control of the short street leading to the old bridge to local control at that point and the new bridge become MN 36 when the bridge was approved by the legislature?
What am I missing?
I really didn't want to get down in the weeds on this, but waaaay back, the Minnesota Constitution was simplified to remove a lot of the detail (like trunk route 1-70 details) that it contained. So, some of that detail, like Constitutional Route details, were moved into Minnesota Revised Statutes. The Constitutional Routes were put in Minn. Stat. §161.114, and Subdivision 1 saith:
QuoteSubdivision 1.Designation.
The trunk highway routes, numbered 1 through 70, as described in the constitutional amendment adopted November 2, 1920, are designated as the constitutional routes of the trunk highway system.
All this did is take verbiage out of the state constitution. Subdivision 1 quoted above indicates it's immovable and eternal, unless a subsequent amendment nullifies any part of it. There has never been a public vote to change any endpoint of a trunk highway. Every trunk highway change since that time has been accomplished by changes to any route numbered over 70 (Minn. Stat. §161.115) or by MnDOT making administrative changes to trunk highways by moving defined routes over different routes. As I cited above, Constitutional Route 50 originally went from Farmington through (what is now known as) Lakeville then north to the Minneapolis city limits. Maybe 20 years ago, MnDOT turned back the portion of MN-50 from Farmington to Lakeville, because it could reroute Constitutional Route 50 north along existing Constitutional Route 1 and Legislative Route 116 to the south limits of Minneapolis. (Routes already designated Trunk Highways 3, 149 and 55).
In the case of the new St. Croix River Bridge, MnDOT can't do any administrative magic because Constitutional Route 45 has to end
in Stillwater on the west bank of the St. Croix River, and nothing is authorized from Constitutional Route 45 (MN-36) to the Wisconsin border outside Stillwater. Thus the need to have a friendly legislator run the annual MnDOT bill to include a housekeeping measure like this, creating a new Legislative Route.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on March 19, 2013, 10:32:53 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 19, 2013, 07:18:15 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 19, 2013, 09:51:36 AM
QuoteThe constitutional routes have to be state maintained per the state constitution, but they don't have to keep the same route number right?
No. Monte hinted at this earlier, but the Constitutional/Legislative Route numbers do not have to match the numbers signed in the field. Old Steve (i.e. High Plains Traveler) highlights this very well on his Minnesota route webpages.
Froggie, looking at the link that was provided, it reads to me that these Constitution Routes became Statutes in the 1960s. And "When MnDOT turns back a section of road, the legislation that authorized that portion may or may not be modified or removed to reflect the change in jurisdiction."
So if this is the case, why would there need to be a public vote on a change to an endpoint of a trunk highway? If I read this correctly, it looks like it can be simply done by the legislature at the time when a new roadway is completed, such as the case with the new Stillwater Bridge. Couldn't MnDOT just turn over control of the short street leading to the old bridge to local control at that point and the new bridge become MN 36 when the bridge was approved by the legislature?
What am I missing?
I really didn't want to get down in the weeds on this, but waaaay back, the Minnesota Constitution was simplified to remove a lot of the detail (like trunk route 1-70 details) that it contained. So, some of that detail, like Constitutional Route details, were moved into Minnesota Revised Statutes. The Constitutional Routes were put in Minn. Stat. §161.114, and Subdivision 1 saith:
QuoteSubdivision 1.Designation.
The trunk highway routes, numbered 1 through 70, as described in the constitutional amendment adopted November 2, 1920, are designated as the constitutional routes of the trunk highway system.
All this did is take verbiage out of the state constitution. Subdivision 1 quoted above indicates it's immovable and eternal, unless a subsequent amendment nullifies any part of it. There has never been a public vote to change any endpoint of a trunk highway. Every trunk highway change since that time has been accomplished by changes to any route numbered over 70 (Minn. Stat. §161.115) or by MnDOT making administrative changes to trunk highways by moving defined routes over different routes. As I cited above, Constitutional Route 50 originally went from Farmington through (what is now known as) Lakeville then north to the Minneapolis city limits. Maybe 20 years ago, MnDOT turned back the portion of MN-50 from Farmington to Lakeville, because it could reroute Constitutional Route 50 north along existing Constitutional Route 1 and Legislative Route 116 to the south limits of Minneapolis. (Routes already designated Trunk Highways 3, 149 and 55).
In the case of the new St. Croix River Bridge, MnDOT can't do any administrative magic because Constitutional Route 45 has to end in Stillwater on the west bank of the St. Croix River, and nothing is authorized from Constitutional Route 45 (MN-36) to the Wisconsin border outside Stillwater. Thus the need to have a friendly legislator run the annual MnDOT bill to include a housekeeping measure like this, creating a new Legislative Route.
Hence a block long MN 195 :)
just what is with early 20th century transportation policy giving responsibility for highway routing to the legislature!?
California used to have Legislative Route Numbers, Oregon has a pathetically confusing system of highways vs. routes, and Minnesota has its competent transportation engineers tied up by elected officials.
who ever decided this was a good idea?
Quote from: texaskdog on March 20, 2013, 01:22:13 PM
* * *
Hence a block long MN 195 :)
Actually, I think the fragment of Chestnut Street, should MnDOT find it has to maintain it, would be invisible Trunk Highway 936A.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 20, 2013, 01:38:36 PM
just what is with early 20th century transportation policy giving responsibility for highway routing to the legislature!?
California used to have Legislative Route Numbers, Oregon has a pathetically confusing system of highways vs. routes, and Minnesota has its competent transportation engineers tied up by elected officials.
who ever decided this was a good idea?
In Minnesota, it took a constitutional amendment to ensure highway funding through transportation taxes. They didn't establish a Highway Commission with the authority to create and delete routes like many states have. Just the way they did it. Typically, route deletions and additions are part of the Transportation Omnibus bill in a housekeeping section, carried by a friendly legislator (I know, I used that term above). Hmmm, wouldn't an omnibus bill be about transit?
Quite a few highways were foisted onto the Minnesota Department of Highways by the legislature against their will; most of the 1933, 1949, and 1951 additions. They're slowly undoing the 1949 and 1951 additions by about two per year. This year LR/MN 235 and LR 256 / MN 66 are up for removal.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on March 20, 2013, 07:17:39 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on March 20, 2013, 01:22:13 PM
* * *
Hence a block long MN 195 :)
Actually, I think the fragment of Chestnut Street, should MnDOT find it has to maintain it, would be invisible Trunk Highway 936A.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 20, 2013, 01:38:36 PM
just what is with early 20th century transportation policy giving responsibility for highway routing to the legislature!?
California used to have Legislative Route Numbers, Oregon has a pathetically confusing system of highways vs. routes, and Minnesota has its competent transportation engineers tied up by elected officials.
who ever decided this was a good idea?
In Minnesota, it took a constitutional amendment to ensure highway funding through transportation taxes. They didn't establish a Highway Commission with the authority to create and delete routes like many states have. Just the way they did it. Typically, route deletions and additions are part of the Transportation Omnibus bill in a housekeeping section, carried by a friendly legislator (I know, I used that term above). Hmmm, wouldn't an omnibus bill be about transit?
Ok. With that being said, could the legislature renumber the stub of Chestnut St to fulfill the "requirement" of maintaining the "Constitutional" endpoint and have 36 on the new bridge? There has to be a way around this silliness and making the new bridge a different number would seem more silly than renumbering Chestnut.
The. Legislature. Does. Not. Set. Signed. Numbers. Some signed numbers match the legislative numbers, because it's easier that way, but many do not.
QuoteOk. With that being said, could the legislature renumber the stub of Chestnut St to fulfill the "requirement" of maintaining the "Constitutional" endpoint and have 36 on the new bridge? There has to be a way around this silliness and making the new bridge a different number would seem more silly than renumbering Chestnut.
Joe Public won't notice a difference, because the new bridge will be signed as MN 36 regardless. This conversation has basically boiled down to semantics at this point. The bottom line is that the Constitutional/Legislative Routes are there for legal purposes...they're the means by which MnDOT can legally own/operate/maintain the highways. The C.R./L.R. route DOES NOT HAVE TO MATCH WHAT IT'S SIGNED IN THE FIELD.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on March 20, 2013, 07:17:39 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on March 20, 2013, 01:22:13 PM
* * *
Hence a block long MN 195 :)
Actually, I think the fragment of Chestnut Street, should MnDOT find it has to maintain it, would be invisible Trunk Highway 936A.
I'm betting it will get turned back, and it will be an extension of county 23. Though I would like to see a renumbering of county roads in Stillwater... In my mind, it should be a county 5 extension.
If it's 936A, I bet MN/DOT will sign it as county 23, the same way they sign Scott county's 101 along MN 801B
Quote from: NE2 on March 21, 2013, 06:31:06 AM
The. Legislature. Does. Not. Set. Signed. Numbers. Some signed numbers match the legislative numbers, because it's easier that way, but many do not.
then why have legislative numbers at all?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 21, 2013, 12:30:22 PM
then why have legislative numbers at all?
Because the alternative is worse: numbers can't be changed without the legislature getting involved.
If you meant to ask "why have legislative routes defined", that's how they chose to do it.
Quote from: Mdcastle on March 20, 2013, 09:02:31 PM
Quite a few highways were foisted onto the Minnesota Department of Highways by the legislature against their will; most of the 1933, 1949, and 1951 additions. They're slowly undoing the 1949 and 1951 additions by about two per year. This year LR/MN 235 and LR 256 / MN 66 are up for removal.
Poor Good Thunder :(
Quote from: NE2 on March 21, 2013, 12:42:40 PM
If you meant to ask "why have legislative routes defined", that's how they chose to do it.
that is indeed my question. why did they choose to do it that way?
is there any state that, historically, decided from the get-go to enact legislation forming a DOT and give them blanket responsibility over the roads?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 21, 2013, 12:50:41 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 21, 2013, 12:42:40 PM
If you meant to ask "why have legislative routes defined", that's how they chose to do it.
that is indeed my question. why did they choose to do it that way?
Because it gets tedious to talk in committee about "the proposed route that goes between Springfield and Capitol City via Millet and Lake Wobegon"
Quote
is there any state that, historically, decided from the get-go to enact legislation forming a DOT and give them blanket responsibility over the roads?
I doubt it... new roads are expensive and possibly disruptive to the neighbors and the legislature will want to take any credit for them and specify the approximate route to minimize problems for their most important constituent$.
Quote from: kkt on March 21, 2013, 02:25:04 PM
"the proposed route that goes between Springfield and Capitol City via Millet and Lake Wobegon"
is that not how it is generally done? it's the transportation department who comes up with a number, like MD-200 - and the legislature can use that number.
I-69C, I-99, etc, are anomalies and/or abominations.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 21, 2013, 12:50:41 PM
is there any state that, historically, decided from the get-go to enact legislation forming a DOT and give them blanket responsibility over the roads?
Off the top of my head, I'd guess New England, Maryland, Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, and a bunch of others.
Quote from: NE2 on March 21, 2013, 03:57:14 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 21, 2013, 12:50:41 PM
is there any state that, historically, decided from the get-go to enact legislation forming a DOT and give them blanket responsibility over the roads?
Off the top of my head, I'd guess New England, Maryland, Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, and a bunch of others.
New England - which of the following do you mean?
a) every state in New England, and I didn't want to type them all out.
b) New England had a DOT with responsibilities beyond simply signing the old New England Highway System.
c) I misspelled New Alanland. oopsie.
d) Australia.
Quote from: NE2 on March 21, 2013, 03:57:14 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 21, 2013, 12:50:41 PM
is there any state that, historically, decided from the get-go to enact legislation forming a DOT and give them blanket responsibility over the roads?
Off the top of my head, I'd guess New England, Maryland, Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, and a bunch of others.
How does it work in New Jersey? I know there are statutes for every route, but are these actually drawn up by the legislature, or does the DOT designate the routes and hand the designations over for ratification?
I have no idea how NJ works now.
Mn/DOT decided to award the design/build contract for the Minnesota approach to the second lowest bidder: Ames / Lunda instead of C.S. McCrossan because the latter didn't employ enough women and minorities. This act of political correctness will cost state $6 million.
Quote from: Mdcastle on April 23, 2013, 09:11:13 AM
Mn/DOT decided to award the design/build contract for the Minnesota approach to the second lowest bidder: Ames / Lunda instead of C.S. McCrossan because the latter didn't employ enough women and minorities. This act of political correctness will cost state $6 million.
But they'll feel so much better about themselves.
Quote from: texaskdog on April 23, 2013, 10:23:52 AM
Quote from: Mdcastle on April 23, 2013, 09:11:13 AM
Mn/DOT decided to award the design/build contract for the Minnesota approach to the second lowest bidder: Ames / Lunda instead of C.S. McCrossan because the latter didn't employ enough women and minorities. This act of political correctness will cost state $6 million.
But they'll feel so much better about themselves.
Oh, and C.S McCrossan is suing stop work on the contract until it is either rebid or awarded to them. The anti-car people are wetting themselves thinking this will stop the project, but it only affects the Minnesota approach road.
Quote from: Mdcastle on April 23, 2013, 09:11:13 AM
Mn/DOT decided to award the design/build contract for the Minnesota approach to the second lowest bidder: Ames / Lunda instead of C.S. McCrossan because the latter didn't employ enough women and minorities. This act of political correctness will cost state $6 million.
So who decided the definition of "enough"? Another one for the courts....
rte66man
Quote from: NE2 on March 21, 2013, 06:31:06 AM
The. Legislature. Does. Not. Set. Signed. Numbers. Some signed numbers match the legislative numbers, because it's easier that way, but many do not.
Depends on the state. The original Illinois state route numbers, the State Bond Issue (SBI) Routes, were set by the legislature. They were numbered in the order the legislature approved the bonds; hence SBI-1 is IL-1. Many of them are the same routes you see today, including the aforementioned IL-1 being on most of SBI-1.
Quote from: Mdcastle on April 23, 2013, 11:04:18 AM
Oh, and C.S McCrossan is suing stop work on the contract until it is either rebid or awarded to them.
good.
a private agency can accept whatever bid they want. but the general public should not be wasting taxpayer money on this kind of horse-defecatery.
Quote from: rte66man on April 23, 2013, 12:51:57 PM
Quote from: Mdcastle on April 23, 2013, 09:11:13 AM
Mn/DOT decided to award the design/build contract for the Minnesota approach to the second lowest bidder: Ames / Lunda instead of C.S. McCrossan because the latter didn't employ enough women and minorities. This act of political correctness will cost state $6 million.
So who decided the definition of "enough"? Another one for the courts....
rte66man
The "goal" was 16.7% of the subcontractors be "Disadvantaged Businesses Enterprises"; those owned at least 51% by women and/or minorities. C.S. McCrossan guaranteed 11% and said they would strive for the 16.7%. One of their allegations in the lawsuit was that the word "goal" doesn't have a specific legal meaning, so they should have been awarded the contract even if they could not guarantee the goal.
The difference amounts to another $3 million going to so called disadvantaged businesses. Why doesn't the state save $3 million by writing that amount in checks to the disadvantaged businesses and hiring McCrossan to build the bridge?
Quote from: Brandon on April 23, 2013, 01:00:47 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 21, 2013, 06:31:06 AM
The. Legislature. Does. Not. Set. Signed. Numbers. Some signed numbers match the legislative numbers, because it's easier that way, but many do not.
Depends on the state. The original Illinois state route numbers, the State Bond Issue (SBI) Routes, were set by the legislature. They were numbered in the order the legislature approved the bonds; hence SBI-1 is IL-1. Many of them are the same routes you see today, including the aforementioned IL-1 being on most of SBI-1.
And in Wisconsin, except for the numbers that are set by the feds (the 'US' highways and the interstates), they are assigned by the bureaucrats at WisDOT.
Mike
Who cares about mumbo-jumbo strictly legalese,
non-end user, "legislative highway numbers" when construction itself has officially begun:
QuoteWork officially begins on new St. Croix bridge project
Associated Press
Posted: 04/29/2013 12:01:00 AM CDT
Updated: 04/29/2013 05:58:17 PM CDT
Work has begun on the new St. Croix bridge project to connect Minnesota and Wisconsin.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation said Monday that crews have built a construction staging area on the Minnesota banks of the St. Croix River.
Current work includes building dock walls to support equipment access for construction of bridge foundations. Crews also are installing steel sheet panels to provide docking facilities for barges. Workers are scheduled in early May to prepare land for the site adjacent to Minnesota 95 in Oak Park Heights.
The project includes building a new four-lane highway bridge across the river connecting expressways on both sides. Construction of the bridge superstructure is scheduled to start in 2014.
The project will replace the 80-year-old Stillwater Lift Bridge.
http://host.madison.com/news/state-and-regional/work-begins-on-new-st-croix-bridge-project/article_d34ead9c-59e9-5b6b-85ac-04d8fe2c811b.html:cheers: :thumbsup:
Webcam link: http://www.earthcam.net/projects/mndot/stcroixcrossingbridge/
QuoteJudge won't stop Stillwater bridge work
By Mary Divine
mdivine@pioneerpress.com
Posted: 05/06/2013 12:01:00 AM CDT
Updated: 05/07/2013 07:59:06 AM CDT
A federal judge has denied a request by C.S. McCrossan Construction to halt work on the new St. Croix River bridge.
U.S. District Judge Richard Kyle on Monday, May 6, also ordered that McCrossan's federal lawsuit against the Minnesota Department of Transportation be put on hold until the Minnesota Court of Appeals rules on its state suit.
McCrossan officials "failed to demonstrate either irreparable harm absent injunctive relief or that (the company) is likely to succeed on the merits," Kyle wrote in his order.
McCrossan, based in Maple Grove, claimed last month that the Minnesota Department of Transportation illegally rejected its bid for part of the $626 million bridge project. The company said MnDOT acted improperly in awarding a $58.1 million bid for approach work on Minnesota 36 and 95 to a joint venture of Ames Construction of Burnsville and Lunda Construction of Black River Falls, Wis. McCrossan's bid of $52.3 million was $6 million less than the Ames-Lunda bid; McCrossan also had the best technical score.
MnDOT in February named McCrossan the apparent low bidder for the work, but the bid was later rejected after the agency determined McCrossan didn't make "good faith efforts" to obtain the participation of disadvantaged businesses. Federal law requires that recipients of federal funding hire certain percentages of woman- and minority-owned businesses.
Ames-Lunda was able to achieve the project's goal of 16.7 percent for disadvantaged business
participation; McCrossan's bid, which had a disadvantaged business participation of 10.6 percent, did not, MnDOT said.
"Perhaps most damning to McCrossan's argument, however, is the fact that both Ames/Lunda and (a third bidder) were able to submit proposals meeting MnDOT's 16.7 percent goal for DBE (Disadvantaged Business Enterprise) participation," Kyle wrote. "The court struggles to comprehend how McCrossan's equal-protection rights were violated when all three 'short-listed' contractors were subjected to the same DBE and good-faith efforts required in the regulations. ... All three contractors were operating on a level playing field, and two met the project's goal while McCrossan did not; there is simply no suggestion in the record that MnDOT's action benefited one contractor over another."
McCrossan officials said Monday they were disappointed.
"We are very unhappy with (Judge Kyle's) order," said Charley McCrossan, company CEO. "He failed to consider the most important part, which is that the taxpayers are being dinged for $6 million."
Kevin Gutknecht, MnDOT spokesman, said Monday that the agency does not discuss matters that are in litigation.
Plans call for the work on the Minnesota 36 approach to begin this spring and be completed by fall 2014. The bridge is expected to be completed in 2016.
http://www.twincities.com/crime/ci_23184264/stillwater-bridge-federal-judge-declines-grant-builders-injunctionGood! :coffee:
Quote from: on_wisconsin on May 08, 2013, 01:32:28 AM
QuoteJudge won't stop Stillwater bridge work
By Mary Divine
mdivine@pioneerpress.com
Posted: 05/06/2013 12:01:00 AM CDT
Updated: 05/07/2013 07:59:06 AM CDT
A federal judge has denied a request by C.S. McCrossan Construction to halt work on the new St. Croix River bridge.
U.S. District Judge Richard Kyle on Monday, May 6, also ordered that McCrossan's federal lawsuit against the Minnesota Department of Transportation be put on hold until the Minnesota Court of Appeals rules on its state suit.
McCrossan officials "failed to demonstrate either irreparable harm absent injunctive relief or that (the company) is likely to succeed on the merits," Kyle wrote in his order.
McCrossan, based in Maple Grove, claimed last month that the Minnesota Department of Transportation illegally rejected its bid for part of the $626 million bridge project. The company said MnDOT acted improperly in awarding a $58.1 million bid for approach work on Minnesota 36 and 95 to a joint venture of Ames Construction of Burnsville and Lunda Construction of Black River Falls, Wis. McCrossan's bid of $52.3 million was $6 million less than the Ames-Lunda bid; McCrossan also had the best technical score.
MnDOT in February named McCrossan the apparent low bidder for the work, but the bid was later rejected after the agency determined McCrossan didn't make "good faith efforts" to obtain the participation of disadvantaged businesses. Federal law requires that recipients of federal funding hire certain percentages of woman- and minority-owned businesses.
Ames-Lunda was able to achieve the project's goal of 16.7 percent for disadvantaged business
participation; McCrossan's bid, which had a disadvantaged business participation of 10.6 percent, did not, MnDOT said.
"Perhaps most damning to McCrossan's argument, however, is the fact that both Ames/Lunda and (a third bidder) were able to submit proposals meeting MnDOT's 16.7 percent goal for DBE (Disadvantaged Business Enterprise) participation," Kyle wrote. "The court struggles to comprehend how McCrossan's equal-protection rights were violated when all three 'short-listed' contractors were subjected to the same DBE and good-faith efforts required in the regulations. ... All three contractors were operating on a level playing field, and two met the project's goal while McCrossan did not; there is simply no suggestion in the record that MnDOT's action benefited one contractor over another."
McCrossan officials said Monday they were disappointed.
"We are very unhappy with (Judge Kyle's) order," said Charley McCrossan, company CEO. "He failed to consider the most important part, which is that the taxpayers are being dinged for $6 million."
Kevin Gutknecht, MnDOT spokesman, said Monday that the agency does not discuss matters that are in litigation.
Plans call for the work on the Minnesota 36 approach to begin this spring and be completed by fall 2014. The bridge is expected to be completed in 2016.
http://www.twincities.com/crime/ci_23184264/stillwater-bridge-federal-judge-declines-grant-builders-injunction
Good! :coffee:
Aaannnnndd its on:
QuoteSt. Croix bridge construction starts with a roar
Article by: KEVIN GILES , Star Tribune
Updated: May 11, 2013 - 12:40 PM
Clear-cutting of an abandoned neighborhood and the restoration of a scenic outlook now are in full swing as preparation for the new St. Croix bridge begins.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2Fows_136829399813514_zps0c02780c.jpg&hash=e2daac5b4c206f4061839409662d2d6890a393a3)
Above, Xcel Energy took down trees and power poles in Oak Park Heights south of Hwy. 36 and east of Beach Road.
Construction of a four-lane St. Croix bridge shifts this week from maps and blueprints to roaring motors and a changing landscape in Oak Park Heights, the new host city.
An influx of heavy equipment means that work on the new bridge and its approach highways has begun in earnest. The work signals an impending retirement for the 1931 Stillwater Lift Bridge, about 2 miles to the north, which in 2017 will be closed to vehicle traffic and become part of a pedestrian loop trail.
The St. Croix Crossing project includes a roadway approach on the Wisconsin side of the river, historic and environmental mitigation, and trails for walking and cycling. Dozens of contractors and thousands of workers will be involved at the peak of the construction.
"I think that the communities will have an iconic bridge they will be pleased with that will serve them for years to come," said Mary McFarland Brooks, a spokeswoman for the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). "I think it will be something that people will be proud of."
Here's the latest in the two-state project, estimated to cost as much as $690 million:
• Preparation begins for reconstruction of Hwy. 36 and Hwy. 95. Work involves clearing trees and vegetation as well as removing pavement from the "Village Neighborhood" area in Oak Park Heights off Beach Road.
Work will continue for about two weeks in the area, where houses were removed in the 1990s. Roads into the work area will be barricaded. A popular traffic shortcut, 59th Street between Hwy. 95 and Stagecoach Trail, will permanently close.
Two trees with eagles' nests will be preserved in the construction zone, McFarland Brooks said. "The eagles remain in their home," she said last week.
• Crews are building a construction staging area on the Minnesota side of the St. Croix River for the bridge foundations. A new dock wall will support equipment and material. Cranes and barges are being hauled to the site.
• MnDOT and its companion agency in Wisconsin will hold several public open houses to acquaint residents with the bridge project and how it affects them.
Minnesota open houses are scheduled for: May 21, 4:30-6:30 p.m., Oak Park Heights City Hall, 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N.; May 30, 4:30-6:30 p.m., Bayport Public Library, 582 4th St. N.; June 11, 4:30-6:30 p.m., Stillwater Public Library, 224 3rd St. N.
Wisconsin open houses are scheduled for: May 23, 5-7 p.m., Hudson High School Cafeteria, 1501 Vine St.; June 4, 6:30-8 p.m., Houlton Elementary School, 70 County Hwy. E.
• Boaters can expect a channel "narrowing" and a no-wake zone beginning in late May near Sunnyside Marina. The restriction will result from work on bridge footings in the river.
• MnDOT will do public programming on Valley Cable in June to inform Washington County residents about the latest work.
• A groundbreaking for the bridge project will be held May 28 at 2:30 p.m. at Lowell Park in Stillwater. Govs. Mark Dayton of Minnesota and Scott Walker of Wisconsin are expected to attend.
• Restoration of the Lake St. Croix Overlook in Oak Park Heights has begun. Improvements will include replacing portions of the rock wall, repaving the area, replacing and updating interpretive history, and restoring landscaping to its native state.
The overlook was one of a series of "highway rests" built by the National Youth Administration, a federal poverty-relief program, in the late 1930s.
• MnDOT is writing a curriculum that schools can use to teach students about the work behind the bridge project.
The S.T.E.M. (science, technology, engineering and math) program will make engineers and materials available to classes and already involves schools in Stillwater and Somerset, Hudson, New Richmond and Houlton in western Wisconsin.
Schools wanting to participate can contact McFarland Brooks at 651-366-4280.
• A new parking lot will be built east of Club Tara, a longtime restaurant south of Hwy. 36 in Oak Park Heights.
• MnDOT is working with the Washington County Sheriff's Office on a Code Red capability that would enable e-mail alerts to specific residents affected by construction.
• Protected mussel populations have been found on the Wisconsin side of the bridge project and no work will occur there until conservationists from both states are able to move them, McFarland Brooks said. These are different from zebra mussels, an invasive species that temporarily halted barge work recently.
Work begins soon on rebuilding frontage roads along Hwy. 36 through Oak Park Heights. Later stages will include reconstructing and realigning Hwy. 36 and rebuilding intersections at Oakgreen-Greeley and Osgood Avenues.
• On the Wisconsin side of the river, some landowners whose property lies in the path of highway construction have received purchase offers. More offers will be mailed this month, WisDOT spokeswoman Chris Ouellette said.
Owners have 60 days to seek their own appraisal if they choose. If an agreement can't be reached, WisDOT will begin eminent domain proceedings, Ouellette said.
WisDOT plans to acquire all needed property by this fall for the first portion of the highway project, which will extend about 1 mile from the bridge site to County Road E near Houlton School, where a diamond interchange will be built.
The second project will extend the highway about 2 miles from County Road E north to Hwy. 64.
• Endangered dotted blazing star flowers were moved from the path of the highway last fall, but WisDOT will check the area again this spring to make sure none remains. The dotted blazing stars are being nurtured in nurseries for transplanting this spring and summer.
http://www.startribune.com/local/east/207051111.html?page=all&prepage=1&c=y#continue(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.skyscrapercity.com%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fbanana.gif&hash=8667b540097e05fcb10bcb77c078076a07029f5b)
I'd like to rent a couple of boats to drive in front of the webcam with a banner "Too bad, Enviro-Wackos. Or even something less PG.
Quote from: Mdcastle on May 12, 2013, 04:04:52 PM
I'd like to rent a couple of boats to drive in front of the webcam with a banner "Too bad, Enviro-Wackos. Or even something less PG.
Because you're a dick?
Seriously I don't see the need to spite people that didn't agree with you. This goes for a lot of people in this thread in particular. C'mon, man! We're getting the bridge despite some vocal objections. Can't we just be gracious in this 'victory'? No need to taunt the opposition. That's what we have sports for.
If they hadn't cost the states hundreds of millions of dollars or weren't mainly outsiders trying to impose their will on the area I might be less enthusiastic about spiting them.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2890%2F8917551075_66871623d2_z.jpg&hash=eaf8223a5d4759cb76baf6e165bbbb18ba4bdcaa) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/8917551075/)
IMG_2707 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/8917551075/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
There's a neat new side where the Wisconsin touchdown is going to be.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2847%2F8917551937_03a0957691_z.jpg&hash=8085e08548bae6a82306086aaf99bd430cca9c4d) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/8917551937/)
IMG_2705 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/8917551937/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
A wider view. The two houses that were here have already been acquired and removed. The ROW WisDOT bought was for the Braun alignment, so they have to buy more and will have excess to sell.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2805%2F8918166632_630b5407ba_z.jpg&hash=0c04608c133e714680349eff3470f161acab9978) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/8918166632/)
IMG_2702 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/8918166632/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7361%2F8917555549_3b7ae6cf20_z.jpg&hash=7d41bd25f000f9bf238ed3542d822865caf4fb54) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/8917555549/)
IMG_2675 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/8917555549/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7361%2F8917555549_3b7ae6cf20_z.jpg&hash=7d41bd25f000f9bf238ed3542d822865caf4fb54) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/8917555549/)
IMG_2675 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/8917555549/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3689%2F8918168058_147b83abc5_z.jpg&hash=23f039691f3ba3445e023b7842fbeddc0a3d53ed) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/8918168058/)
IMG_2690 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/8918168058/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
The Oak Park Heights "ghost neighborhood" (most of the houses bought and removed before the lawsuit halted the project) is now deforested. The cranes in the background are building a barge terminal for the construction crews. The staging areas will be on the Minnesota side due to the steep bluffs and lack of development on the Wisconsin side.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3766%2F8918170204_ca8f925b70_z.jpg&hash=cede4b46ddcc3fd6f1ff57e1ac33d1258edd36a3) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/8918170204/)
IMG_2668 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/8918170204/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
I'm not sure what this is.
With Flickr now offering an obscene amount of free storage, I will be transitioning most of my highway photos back there, including more photos and full sized versions.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.skyscrapercity.com%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fprevious.gif&hash=ee51c7adb39e56ca899032f44ba303cf3aec9604)
Awesome thanks for sharing be sure to take more whenever you get the opportunity. On a off chance, did you happen across that "unofficial" road the local residents built in the '60s, when you where out there?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Here is this years schedule for the MN side:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2Fschedulemap_zps8d01abfc.png&hash=18c17087a3a42b7666b6abef8256a73b76588e93)
By the time the snow flies again there will be no doubt, from the ground, as to where the bridge will go.
I took a look at the "unofficial" road on a previous trip, but I didn't get any pictures. I wouldn't have bothered with my camera yesterday either, except it looked a lot less cloudy when I set off than when I got there (I live in the southwestern suburbs so it's a bit of a hike to get there). I guess the local teens call the overlook "Joint Point" after it's apparent primary use. I might see one car there on a nice weekend summer day, and it's going to get harder to access with the construction.
A bit about the history of the area- Lookout drive was the original trunk highway entrance into the city from the west, so that's why a lookout was built there (with stone from the old prison). The rerouting with interchanges with MN 95 and Beach Road occurred in the 1960s. and cut off Peabody Ave from what was a regular street grid; Peabody was a dead end, where the curve is streets continued south and east.
Quote from: Mdcastle on June 01, 2013, 07:51:38 PM
IMG_2668 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/8918170204/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
I'm not sure what this is.
Is that part of the fly ash landfill uphill from the power plant? Thought I recall there being one adjacent to the project site right here:
http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=45.03429,-92.79851&z=16&t=S (http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=45.03429,-92.79851&z=16&t=S)
So I don't have to dig through project documents from 1995, what is the "Braun alignment"? I ask because years ago I worked for a geotechnical/environmental firm named for Mr. Richard Braun.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on June 03, 2013, 09:41:54 PM
So I don't have to dig through project documents from 1995, what is the "Braun alignment"? I ask because years ago I worked for a geotechnical/environmental firm named for Mr. Richard Braun.
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/stcroix/background.html
QuoteIn an effort to determine whether any crossing of the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway was feasible near Stillwater, Mn/DOT and Wis/DOT invited Richard P. Braun, a retired Mn/DOT transportation commissioner, to perform an independent review of the project. Braun was asked to review the need for a replacement crossing and to investigate potential bridge alignment alternatives. In addition, he was asked to recommend an alignment and type of bridge structure that would be both feasible to construct and acceptable for implementation by the key interested parties. Between June and September of 1998, Braun conducted extensive discussions and meetings with many individuals and organizations, and facilitated public meetings with a 21-member advisory group (the St. Croix River Crossing Advisory Group) that included representatives from federal and state regulatory agencies, local and regional units of government, environmental groups, historic preservation groups, and chambers of commerce.
Braun recommended a four-lane, deck-tied, steel arch bridge on an alignment 1, 100 meters (3,600 feet) south of the existing Stillwater Lift Bridge. The proposed bridge would cross the river perpendicularly and would be shorter than the 1995 Final EIS Preferred Alternative. The alignment would also take advantage of an existing ravine on the Wisconsin bluff, thereby reducing potential impacts on the Lower St. Croix Valley. A large majority of the St. Croix River Crossing Advisory Group agreed that they could accept the Braun recommendations.
FYI, here is the land in question:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2Fbraun-stillwater_zps077b4530.png&hash=8e436aa90a8ebe90dbf742949c960c73055bf311)
I thought I had read somewhere that WisDOT plans on using a portion of the old ROW as a casting and staging yard. Then selling the land when that stage is complete.
In addition to being the former Mn/DOT Commissioner and head of the University's Institute for Transportation Studies, Richard Braun is also the namesake of the MN-610 bridge.
Apparently the Braun of Braun Intertec is a different guy, Jack Braun. Are they related?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3740%2F9169774617_f8018dc805_z.jpg&hash=bd28ed62494ab541833a9786e5731a6b98b045a7) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/9169774617/)
IMG_2887 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/9169774617/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5507%2F9169775577_7a4f4329f1_z.jpg&hash=8cba2c00c369ec409d2c84a69a81e0a66fd1d912) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/9169775577/)
IMG_2885 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/9169775577/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7442%2F9171996522_230aa5ee76_z.jpg&hash=98fcaeb1074b946ae37f0f2442fe5b9beba6170b) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/9171996522/)
IMG_2884 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/9171996522/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
The unauthorized road to "Joint Point" as some of the local youngsters call it. In the second two photos at the entrance to the lookout it's covered in the green netting. After finding out Lookout Drive was the original trunk highway routing, I noticed that it appears to have ancient Department of Highways era concrete below the blacktop.
Minnesota 36
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2876%2F9430683357_3374acd9de_z.jpg&hash=dd609001b666018f708206fb6bf4552a4e540332) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/9430683357/)
IMG_3026 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/9430683357/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
The "Ghost Neighborhood" has been wiped off
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3667%2F9433454054_5ae6524584_z.jpg&hash=f6dbe30b699de9a032008c41d8c7c828d9bf2a74) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/9433454054/)
IMG_3028 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/9433454054/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
The actual bridge
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7418%2F9433450952_9208000ba6_z.jpg&hash=4296882410047d8e2f2ffe79e9f7e88be91aeecf) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/9433450952/)
IMG_3035 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/9433450952/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
MN 36 and MN 95
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7384%2F9433449146_5301a4d134_z.jpg&hash=9b17aa1e1e94bc23c56c306e72484111c9657a80) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/9433449146/)
IMG_3039 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/9433449146/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7290%2F9433448698_59fcedabbc_z.jpg&hash=820cc2cb2ae9c8986594f950f397d08ef80397ad) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/9433448698/)
IMG_3040 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/9433448698/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
In the background is the old MN 36 overpass that's not long for this world.
It does take a lot of work to embed and comment on photos, so Flickr will be all the decent ones without comment, and I'll just embed and comment on some of the highlights here.
The new Beach Road overpass (on the MN side) is coming together nicely:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F563560_402545153202337_1624154363_n_zps7ebc1137.jpg&hash=54f5584a28b3f37bb27a5126572feb6e43f7dce0)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F1378722_402545156535670_918899142_n_zps49cd0a9a.jpg&hash=dc9efb85ae133ad2788ce26ced8248a0111828e0)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F13869_402545159869003_1038300342_n_zps9c7f6e7c.jpg&hash=648141c0507a91b2c977d468e18bd87ca745b24d)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F1235333_402545213202331_1807493221_n_zps483968fb.jpg&hash=9a7935c02e6e544f85d269a0032b23a348567f08)
all are courtesy of the St. Croix Crossing Facebook page- https://www.facebook.com/saintcroixcrossingmndot
With the old Beach Rd overpass in the background in the first two photos...
Guess I wasted my time driving out last weekend to get pictures...
Quote from: Mdcastle on October 01, 2013, 07:08:23 PM
Guess I wasted my time driving out last weekend to get pictures...
Not really, more pictures are always better then less (please share 'em)... (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.skyscrapercity.com%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fsmile.gif&hash=a4341200187ba49a98b8ff9c673aecb616645ae2)
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Aerial of the main span itself (looking towards Wisconsin):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F1374342_668196733204825_1279729053_n_zpse22507a3.jpg&hash=c321f7aa16aa5ae88ca6dbf84cd17a90c5e4db33)
from the WisDOT Facebook page
Ask and you shall receive... a few different angles than what's been posted. Again, there's more on Flickr. Figured out why I couldn't post them here, there's a new radio button where you need to select BBCode rather than HTML.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5488%2F10087858665_128cddcdb7_z.jpg&hash=e2aa316f995c5abea2de5b63b58a9f3c1db95e8b) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/10087858665/)
IMG_4074 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/10087858665/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2858%2F10087859895_99b36cd5df_z.jpg&hash=31e5c87e17bbd1bbc0e488907247b4ec78250bf2) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/10087859895/)
IMG_4073 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/10087859895/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7372%2F10087876666_eacfb1f730_z.jpg&hash=e8a4d6ecee8ca2de5963250c7cfcfb36be75aade) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/10087876666/)
IMG_4071 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/10087876666/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2827%2F10087863225_aede326ee5_z.jpg&hash=ca4d333496025f58c1b51ef3b7ae455e35c7440d) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/10087863225/)
IMG_4067 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/10087863225/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
This is more or less looking east at the future mainline.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2818%2F10087800294_81fa042e1f_z.jpg&hash=1a97af579457da687cc31c50be04a8ebe51dbaf0) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/10087800294/)
IMG_4076 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/10087800294/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
"Joint Point" is done. With access to Lookout drive being removed from the trunk highways on either ends it's going to be even more obscure.
How is eastbound 36 tying into 95?
Some of my pictures I posted on 8/3 show it, but here's an updated one from ground level on southbound 95. (I didn't post it originally because it's crooked (I tried taking it out my sunroof) and the same view as before)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3722%2F10087945013_d64f1b8dbd_z.jpg&hash=6a5d996316f4869652a5ee752ffd80b38aeeec8a) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/10087945013/)
IMG_4060 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/10087945013/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
Just before Osgood two way traffic in the former westbound lane starts and continues until where the westbound lanes split from southbound 95. A temporary signal has been built to control the conflict between the southbound 95 and eastbound 36. No right turn from 36 to 95 south is not allowed, nor is a left turn from 95 north to 36 west. Traffic doing these movements has to go north on 95 and make a U-turn someplace (the first median crossing is signed no-U-turns but I saw people doing it), or else use the new south frontage road which is now open.
Quote from: Mdcastle on October 05, 2013, 01:01:53 PM
No right turn from 36 to 95 south is not allowed, nor is a left turn from 95 north to 36 west.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7720
PDF diagramming what progress has been made with the foundations.
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stcroixcrossing/pdf/caisson.pdf
Apparently how they're staging it is they're going to pave the new eastbound mainline and ramp and finish the new Beach Road bridge in the next month, then switch all traffic from the old westbound to the new eastbound alignment, then demolish the old Beach Road bridge and finish tying Beach Road into the bridge.
Hopefully they get that done before the snow starts flying. Could also see them leaving just a base course for winter driving then repairing that base course and doing full paving when it warms back up in the spring.
The first bit of exposed concrete on the bridge itself has emerged above water:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2Frgr_zps43a0edbc.jpg&hash=065a4b0ee21ee7ecb6d001b54a50b1abed14f9aa)
:cool:
Went out there to take pictures with the big traffic switch present. Wound up making two trips because on my first my camera was set to VGA resolution.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5519%2F10546671896_41d78e776b.jpg&hash=7ce49ff85886bf44ebf3fe58ee4a53a11518a4fd) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/10546671896/)
IMG_4187 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/10546671896/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3764%2F10546643836_59eee5171d.jpg&hash=d3f832582da544f91b40ed18c83495914ffadcbf) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/10546643836/)
IMG_4260 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/10546643836/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5517%2F10546879423_ce2bd7e726.jpg&hash=34e02e3c8425e3ef0b4239c3a582800cb799f229) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/10546879423/)
IMG_4254 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/10546879423/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3684%2F10546642056_71efbce6d1.jpg&hash=0c14cc92e1fd5c6b3fdcf0925b1cd50d7becc0e4) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/10546642056/)
IMG_4261 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/10546642056/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
The notch in the tree line in the distance is where it will hit the Wisconsin shore.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5490%2F10546867323_66fb4b84aa.jpg&hash=ac6fb7ea7c62099a74d92f82c52b1af61e4d5192) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/10546867323/)
IMG_4263 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/10546867323/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
[EDIT] Added this one into the set, here's a close-up view of the entire intersection.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7399%2F10524612593_89abe991b6.jpg&hash=6651f03b3a421fa3c542cb8d5baaed92fb5fc322) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/10524612593/)
IMG_4198 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/10524612593/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
Below the future bridge ramp.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3757%2F10524403266_4d2ae6c1eb.jpg&hash=4cdde5f4ac3571e3e7c738c2f75e11bcc1ebc53c) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/10524403266/)
IMG_4248 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/10524403266/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7458%2F10546704764_db9f424536.jpg&hash=d3f37f13bac92f9a3844af2dab3d3e4f84575c2a) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/10546704764/)
IMG_4201 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/10546704764/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
Wisconsin touchdown
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2865%2F10546656285_49455b5646.jpg&hash=c724885880864014da2b26f196cc9f8b85f899b0) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/10546656285/)
IMG_4244 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/10546656285/) by 4North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
Wisconsin soils dump site
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2823%2F10566923456_e412788dea.jpg&hash=daf5c0a23fccab701e71701256ff215a3740cd69) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/10566923456/)
IMG_4274 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/10566923456/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
The bridge rises.
Monte, I saw a photo on your Flickr feed yesterday (you didn't post it here) showing what looked to be two FYA overhead signals on an overhead mast in the vicinity. Any further insight into that?
Quote from: froggie on October 30, 2013, 08:26:49 AM
Monte, I saw a photo on your Flickr feed yesterday (you didn't post it here) showing what looked to be two FYA overhead signals on an overhead mast in the vicinity. Any further insight into that?
I think you meant #4623, I added it into the post above, I didn't notice that #4261 didn't include the entire intersection. It's a zoomed in view of the new permanent intersection. Apparently there will be a double left turn lane from southbound MN 95 to eastbound MN 36, hence the double FYAs on the overhead mast (plus one on the far side for good measure). Also they apparently chose just to mount a temporary FYA for northbound MN 95 to temporary MN 36 westbound rather than string a temporary span wire. Presumably when the new permanent westbound ramp is done they'll just swap the head for one with three balls.
More pics:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F580544_418752361581616_441802057_n_zps57ea1ef8.jpg&hash=b271dc59b44459ef636ff6d5a54bf9947e09bcff)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F603080_418752244914961_964685812_n_zps1869fe9f.jpg&hash=20f902e9c4d7e6e18fac5d22795d0e0043d9b655)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F1450827_418752304914955_2113517727_n_zps6fc977dd.jpg&hash=d9427330a294a7624a391b42b462535d7108ab62)
all are courtesy of the St. Croix Crossing Facebook page- https://www.facebook.com/saintcroixcrossingmndot
QuoteSt. Croix bridge: Ames/Lunda looks like job bid winner
By Andy Rathbun arathbun@pioneerpress.com TwinCities.com-Pioneer Press
Posted: TwinCities.com
With a bid of about $380 million, Ames/Lunda Joint Venture is the apparent low bidder for the construction
of the St. Croix River Crossing superstructure, the Minnesota and Wisconsin transportation departments
said Friday.
The actual cost of the contract -- if it is awarded to Ames/Lunda -- would be lower than $380 million,
however, because the bid amount includes the cost of the project and a dollar amount representing the
time frame in which the contractor says it will complete the work, said Jon Chiglo, MnDOT's project
director for the bridge.
Those two components of the bid will remain confidential until the contract is awarded, likely in about two
weeks, Chiglo said.
He said this part of the bridge project has been estimated to cost $285 million to $310 million, which
makes it the largest contract associated with the bridge and one of the largest MnDOT has ever let for
bids.
The cost of the project and time frame offered in the bid were "reasonably close" to MnDOT estimates,
Chiglo said. "We're very comfortable with where they're at when you compare those two elements (of the bid)," Chiglo
said.
The project includes the bridge's superstructure -- the deck and other elements that will rest on piers
already being built in the river -- along with ramp bridges connecting to Minnesota 36, the Minnesota 36
box-girder approach bridge and a structure connecting that bridge to the one crossing the river.
MnDOT has already procured steel piling, which should allow the contractor to quickly begin construction,
Chiglo said.
There also will be a $5 million incentive for the contractor to complete enough work by July 2, 2016, to
allow a single lane of traffic in each direction, said Chiglo, adding other requirements must also be met
before the incentive will be paid. Construction is expected to be completed in the fall of 2016.
Other bids for the project came from St. Croix Constructors Kraemer-Obayashi Joint Venture and PCL
Civil Constructors Inc., which bid about $393 million and about $461 million, respectively.
MnDOT said in a statement that it will "closely review the selected bid to ensure the contractor meets
specifications." Both states' transportation departments will evaluate the bids and work with the Federal
Highway Administration to certify them.
Ames/Lunda, which is the team of Burnsville-based Ames Construction and Black River Falls, Wis.-based
Lunda Construction, is also doing the approach work on the Minnesota side of the bridge.
"They're very good contractors," Chiglo said. "We've worked with them on many projects in the past and
we look forward to working with them on this project."
Ames/Lunda bid $58 million for the Minnesota approach work, which realigns Minnesota 36 and 95. The
new eastbound lanes of Minnesota 36 and the rebuilt Minnesota 95 are now open. The rest will be
finished next construction season.
Plain, Wis.-based Edward Kraemer & Sons is building the bridge's pier foundations. Its bid of $36.7 million
was accepted in March.
The total cost of the bridge project is expected to be $580 million to $676 million. It will connect Oak Park
Heights to the town of St. Joseph, Wis., and replace the aging Stillwater Lift Bridge.
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_24434250/st-croix-river-crossing-apparent-low-bidder-named#
The old Beach Rd overpass is no more:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F1395992_425319124258273_1780819464_n_zps94346edd.jpg&hash=8d5185059a09d8643a4af24b14410abc8fa295dd)
courtesy of the St.Croix Crossing Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/saintcroixcrossingmndot
The new Beach Rd overpass is open, but closed to peds until spring 2014:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F1462813_430193980437454_115629052_o_zps2b476841.jpg&hash=3d92ea1549e6e241499f02668e48b1151607e541)
courtesy of the St.Croix Crossing Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/saintcroixcrossingmndot
Wisconsin touchdown area:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F1399693_430194010437451_672213736_o_zps3823adb4.jpg&hash=202ce04b756cd3a7fe63d0c598bc1023b08aad96)
courtesy of the St.Croix Crossing Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/saintcroixcrossingmndot
Quote from: on_wisconsin on November 28, 2013, 01:21:00 AM
Wisconsin touchdown area:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F1399693_430194010437451_672213736_o_zps3823adb4.jpg&hash=202ce04b756cd3a7fe63d0c598bc1023b08aad96)
courtesy of the St.Croix Crossing Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/saintcroixcrossingmndot
Could've used a few more touchdowns in Wisconsin the last few days. :/
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2891%2F13343075814_9fe5cf98d4.jpg&hash=9a9adcafd427dcdd494bb991f58601837c3c2032) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/13343075814/)
IMG_5173 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/13343075814/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3694%2F13339406803_ebf08982a7.jpg&hash=266d030a31ca0dc4a0e160518fdca81953caa647) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/13339406803/)
IMG_5169 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/13339406803/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7353%2F13339448783_0363950ee3.jpg&hash=d934a8129e118794464568e90b88d79c0ff3f056) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/13339448783/)
IMG_5126 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/13339448783/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7132%2F13339656544_8a9d175575.jpg&hash=10187a232fe25e620edd3b5e41b2d6ff0974f587) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/13339656544/)
IMG_5156 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/13339656544/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3679%2F13339233925_2a303bb6cd.jpg&hash=b25ddc8b0227b0d6d02d2fb3b86c2a89340f4f58) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/13339233925/)
IMG_5223 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/13339233925/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3805%2F13339275675_4cb51edd7b.jpg&hash=7fda2edc7bd12879dbabd17bedff749c945c12e7) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/13339275675/)
IMG_5142 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/13339275675/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7176%2F13339272905_7490443482.jpg&hash=9a42b2c8ff45576dc556d52a07dd51fdebd3df39) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/13339272905/)
IMG_5144 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/13339272905/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3824%2F13339288205_07e1c786fd.jpg&hash=ed7f970dba0416e6d50df7f9c50f8468b72a9799) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/13339288205/)
IMG_5133 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/13339288205/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3703%2F13339286005_11407effd6.jpg&hash=39ebf41f32758772e7c0c38b5959f51ab7b4c7ff) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/13339286005/)
IMG_5134 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/13339286005/) by North Star Highways (http://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7265/13941296583_5b5a204110.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/neWMLt)IMG_5335 (https://flic.kr/p/neWMLt) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3729/13941289233_fc8b94caf2.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/neWKzK)IMG_5342 (https://flic.kr/p/neWKzK) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3685/13941675734_88952e7cbb.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/neYJty)IMG_5352 (https://flic.kr/p/neYJty) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5279/13941670334_e6d89918ac.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/neYGSs)IMG_5359 (https://flic.kr/p/neYGSs) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
These used to be at Oakgreen / Greeley and MN 36. I approached the contractor about buying the 3M light and a couple of the (rare) 12" ped signals. He asked how much I'd offer for everything... I'm keeping 5 lights for myself and will sell or scrap the rest. Sorted out the best stuff first- the stuff on the mast was in the best shape being far from exhaust and salt spray.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F10258785_516317148491803_1777114770259672685_o_zps79b7db1a.jpg&hash=a521164f0ea3e01f47d3353f9e44cfd4c74e3dad)
MnDOT/ St. Croix Crossing Facebook page
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F10486287_526620617461456_4165205626994838809_o_zps718e7dc7.jpg&hash=d12ebee5772200a82392ecf539b55627c88af840)
MnDOT/ St. Croix Crossing Facebook page
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F1622490_526620577461460_8793462032499789866_o_zpsbec9172e.jpg&hash=b5bc82bda84a8ec9dced2f045a233acfff276eba)
MnDOT/ St. Croix Crossing Facebook page
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F10446285_526620464128138_1538637811665800882_o_zps3d58e2fa.jpg&hash=c68eddccf19a4792d657a3d935553289b236530e)
MnDOT/ St. Croix Crossing Facebook page
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F10338566_526620404128144_2738603792005664145_o_zps75d2bb0b.jpg&hash=5b155b375912baf32a24d0680a91c7f6ba50b200)
MnDOT/ St. Croix Crossing Facebook page
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F10365514_526620494128135_4808806938720080627_o_zps1168dcf1.jpg&hash=91d7d01b36b6914e0f8f4132ed6975e3b63eaae4)
MnDOT/ St. Croix Crossing Facebook page
Future WIS 35 overpass:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F10358985_526620667461451_5075859363564639670_o_zpsf877acd4.jpg&hash=78c692baa78b14e2ae3773c8a5d0787a5f1df627)
MnDOT/ St. Croix Crossing Facebook page
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F10493044_525726384217546_8898829916594656258_o_zpsc5197a8d.jpg&hash=b547c310a236d428ffee1652f2c96ed053e79f04)
MnDOT/ St. Croix Crossing Facebook page
Falsework going up:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F10481558_532327760224075_7761519880529809670_o_zpsfbd7d68c.jpg&hash=e32bf00ce83c61de657cdb09eb8b76081072e020)
MnDOT/ St. Croix Crossing Facebook page
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F10517435_532327853557399_7728860304126208872_o_zps9efecf01.jpg&hash=8f6dd82ca57e8b3213b511873013778940aa3d9c)
MnDOT/ St. Croix Crossing Facebook page
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F10450054_532327946890723_3997692667112781559_o_zps20e28778.jpg&hash=b4061a4518193ac011d7eb97c1f45764d7f77b72)
MnDOT/ St. Croix Crossing Facebook page
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F10379788_532327910224060_5445039482026155938_o_zps9c6a9a0f.jpg&hash=36f34cb9849db078a842f128aa37331ee0b2ccff)
MnDOT/ St. Croix Crossing Facebook page
Concrete form for the roadway structure:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F10467030_532327763557408_2903478807429149481_o_zps0c777920.jpg&hash=6e99c43fa524fac6964ed6f1722951b7d4ce3387)
MnDOT/ St. Croix Crossing Facebook page
MN 95 paving:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F10505093_532327750224076_2076931801665908750_o_zpsaa6cbd43.jpg&hash=eaa7f703dd2672bf3a09239211117b584a7ad148)
MnDOT/ St. Croix Crossing Facebook page
Osgood Ave:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F10495353_532327890224062_4167617900717406908_o_zps4a02337d.jpg&hash=94fdd1c6ed14e2370067b3ae0f7efb5545280c60)
MnDOT/ St. Croix Crossing Facebook page
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F10272553_532327930224058_3901731617659602355_o_zps5bec0d40.jpg&hash=ba33f61555dc03bb3d044423905a49731ae1edbc)
MnDOT/ St. Croix Crossing Facebook page
Does anybody know, now I have only seen a satellite image from Google Maps, and read a bit on here about a proposed link between Stillwater and St Paul (I believe, don't quote me)...do they plan on full freeway status from St Paul thru Stillwater and up to New Richmond, WI, since that is freeway (or at least expressway)?
It's a pipe dream, but MnDOT doesn't have the funding to fully upgrade MN 36 to a freeway. Nevermind that Oak Park Heights objected at the time to interchanges along MN 36...not sure if they still do.
Aw for a second there I got excited thinking that someday there'd all of a sudden be an I-994, or an I-735 popping into Wisconsin...
WisDOT is planning for future freeway conversion on WI 64 between Somerset and New Richmond.
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/nwregion/wis64freeway/index.htm (http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/nwregion/wis64freeway/index.htm)
They've been doing that along a lot of expressway corridors throughout the state.
QuoteAw for a second there I got excited thinking that someday there'd all of a sudden be an I-994, or an I-735 popping into Wisconsin...
Nope. MnDOT isn't keen on new Interstate corridors, even when potential opportunities present themselves.
The WIS 35 overpass over the future approach freeway in now OPEN:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F10443127_532791276844390_7021462788110671735_o_zps87eabb2f.jpg&hash=dd9b5b2c5704171f754e1a4bff3090995d0a779f)
MnDOT/ St. Croix Crossing Facebook page
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F10379967_10152489730530664_5855422865967336056_o_zps2ec72727.jpg&hash=e29c0422da062754ec65430fc6773461e2941a09)
(taken sometime last week) | MnDOT/ St. Croix Crossing Facebook page
Quote from: froggie on July 02, 2014, 02:50:55 PM
QuoteAw for a second there I got excited thinking that someday there'd all of a sudden be an I-994, or an I-735 popping into Wisconsin...
Nope. MnDOT isn't keen on new Interstate corridors, even when potential opportunities present themselves.
Plus, the current freeway sections of MN 36 have too narrow of shoulders to be Interstate standard.
Mn/DOT doesn't care a lot what color and shape the highway markers are...
Usually I don't think highly of the "don't slap an Interstate shield on anything" crowd, but in this case it really would be for the purpose of "slapping an Interstate on any damn freeway." An Interstate connecting to... New Richmond, WI? If WISDOT had any plans to build a freeway all the way to U.S. 53, I could see a use for an Interstate along this corridor then...
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3872/14395979149_f140762064.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nW8a44)IMG_5552 (https://flic.kr/p/nW8a44) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2910/14395963338_1e34212a5c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nW85ms)IMG_5553 (https://flic.kr/p/nW85ms) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3884/14396162027_d551fb171b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nW96q8)IMG_5555 (https://flic.kr/p/nW96q8) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2935/14395976499_3dffde3b28.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nW89gn)IMG_5557 (https://flic.kr/p/nW89gn) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3894/14559524116_911bb2acb7.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/obzngS)IMG_5558 (https://flic.kr/p/obzngS) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2897/14582564825_1ab26ac1a2.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/odBstt)IMG_5587 (https://flic.kr/p/odBstt) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3901/14559517696_208fe3b01e.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/obzknb)IMG_5588 (https://flic.kr/p/obzknb) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2900/14580761354_a5334b2faf.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/odsdn9)IMG_5590 (https://flic.kr/p/odsdn9) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2932/14396150847_f0c15aa7ea.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nW936n)IMG_5606 (https://flic.kr/p/nW936n) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3924/14395950658_441b597a89.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nW81zQ)IMG_5609 (https://flic.kr/p/nW81zQ) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2908/14395907420_9f5f73e4c2.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nW7MJm)IMG_5617 (https://flic.kr/p/nW7MJm) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3895/14602671533_123ecd5bfa.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ofovuR)IMG_5630 (https://flic.kr/p/ofovuR) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5487/14395904490_fa80485b9e.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nW7LRQ)IMG_5631 (https://flic.kr/p/nW7LRQ) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr
Quote from: Mdcastle on July 06, 2014, 11:01:45 AM
IMG_5553 (https://flic.kr/p/nW8a44)
For Wisconsin bridge plaques, the "B" stands for bridge, the next number is the county code, and the last number is the unique bridge identifier for that county.
Problem here is that "70" is the code for Winnebago County, where Oshkosh is the county seat and is nowhere close to that bridge.
Edit: having problems with the formatting. It is the 2nd photo in the above set.
Some aerials from this past week:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F10454278_545016092288575_3903541264765093658_o_zpse0794983.jpg&hash=afa9901100071a0b0be5c02f093abe7801f15c0e)
WisDOT/ MnDOT/ St. Croix Crossing Facebook page
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F10272730_545016365621881_9104686425673679241_o_zpsd75d4c03.jpg&hash=42fa875f3e4a7a29e6ffab702310a00341b1df79)
WisDOT/ MnDOT/ St. Croix Crossing Facebook page
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F10562563_545016055621912_8881956217625305795_o_zps3553098b.jpg&hash=5ac4515b72c584fad0073afeb0e536769f94f134)
WisDOT/ MnDOT/ St. Croix Crossing Facebook page
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F10467140_545015882288596_7857512316042347599_o_zps41e16e07.jpg&hash=9ca4f1d49318b10504c3689b9f7db3cae2170c70)
WisDOT/ MnDOT/ St. Croix Crossing Facebook page
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F10497256_545015875621930_236620459072886650_o_zpsa8e4f1ac.jpg&hash=93c42e72aff93825f6cbfc6979eb856f5e59dd1f)
WisDOT/ MnDOT/ St. Croix Crossing Facebook page
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F1025374_545016132288571_8837664032840889138_o_zps37dfcd43.jpg&hash=ba743a499b6d7b7a7a0babaf65f71d97149edd4d)
WisDOT/ MnDOT/ St. Croix Crossing Facebook page
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F10560451_545016308955220_4832152224292664500_o_zpsb378d222.jpg&hash=f35a9609e1d7713d66d5c7d57cbac0b1ad56fa69)
WisDOT/ MnDOT/ St. Croix Crossing Facebook page
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F10575425_545016235621894_1663334797659272482_o_zps3c6c69a8.jpg&hash=09262d5d825d33e2c13507fe3b4d4cb5e74b2c99)
WisDOT/ MnDOT/ St. Croix Crossing Facebook page
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F10497324_545016222288562_7710373063251169508_o_zps08951c18.jpg&hash=d0419fe327879c809cd97b921e1c5086c6b71996)
WisDOT/ MnDOT/ St. Croix Crossing Facebook page
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F10518320_545015952288589_8878630553313319819_o_zps997f9854.jpg&hash=0cfd10207b938f941e3a6ea461f50df662bf8725)
WisDOT/ MnDOT/ St. Croix Crossing Facebook page
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F10498203_545016328955218_7833201565228801264_o_zpsb218a77a.jpg&hash=7698d09220f0199ebd74bec82582baaa577c2b8b)
WisDOT/ MnDOT/ St. Croix Crossing Facebook page
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2F1497991_545015995621918_706987339779157101_o_zps55be34df.jpg&hash=abd3806c30e4a2fc20c1b7a2a036a30d00146a6c)
WisDOT/ MnDOT/ St. Croix Crossing Facebook page
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3851/15020366216_03ab67cc58.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/oTiizj)IMG_5989 (https://flic.kr/p/oTiizj) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3878/15043009012_3549472380.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/oVimum)IMG_5981 (https://flic.kr/p/oVimum) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5567/14856823667_d5a9ebac09.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/oCR75c)IMG_5976 (https://flic.kr/p/oCR75c) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5594/14856826407_c4728c3362.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/oCR7Tr)IMG_5968 (https://flic.kr/p/oCR7Tr) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3839/15043372165_82a901787f.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/oVkdrB)IMG_5966 (https://flic.kr/p/oVkdrB) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3909/14856730020_831c626a82.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/oCQCeA)IMG_5951 (https://flic.kr/p/oCQCeA) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3839/15020381776_18d407b6b3.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/oTiocA)IMG_5922 (https://flic.kr/p/oTiocA) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3889/15043380795_20819baffa.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/oVkg1p)IMG_5924 (https://flic.kr/p/oVkg1p) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
Went on one of the bridge cruises. Mn/DOT and WisDOT representatives were on hand providing narration and answering questions. A few notes:
*Question was asked why it was design-bid-build instead of design-build. The answer was basically they didn't trust a single contractor for a unique design of this magnitude, they didn't mention that design-build is illegal under Wisconsin law.
*There's a $5 million incentive for the contractor for "on time, no claims, no excuses". A question was asked what a claim was, and the example was the Wakota bridge design flaw was a major one. A current example of what may become a claim is a lot of the forms are being built by a small company in Tennessee. The company owner died and the chief engineer quit, so getting the forms in a timely manner is obviously becoming an issue.
*Everything is right on schedule, they hope to start installing deck pieces this fall. All piers will be built to the full height, and work on the towers will start. The river span deck pieces are being cast in a climate controlled facility at Grey Cloud Island and will continue through the winter, the pieces for the Minnesota approach are being cast outdoors on site and will cease when it gets too cold to pour concrete.
*The metal crossbeams are temporary, 3 of the 5 are installed, and the first two will be dismantled and reused for the final two piers.
*It was pointed out that it looks like nothing is being done on the Wisconsin side, you have to drive over there to see it, from the Minnesota side it just looks like a thin spot in the trees.
*Several questions about if the bridge could be expanded to more lanes (no widening, but they could possibly narrow the lanes and take over the shoulder) and why there are still stoplights on the Minnesota side (quick to blame Oak Park Heights).
*Question why the piers were hollow- it was part of the aesthetic design and supposed to look like reeds (although my sister thought they looked like tuning forks). Question about ornamental lighting- I think I heard that per the aesthetic design only lights inside the piers are being included, but empty conduits are being run for more lights if they're desired in the future.
Yes, Oak Park Heights was afraid that if MN 36 got converted to a full freeway with buttonhook interchanges that the local business would be harmed. I bet that it will be necessary to go back and make the Oak Park Heights section of MN 36 into a full freeway in the future when more people start moving over to New Richmond and Somerset commuting into Minnesota .....
Part of it is also budgetary. MnDOT doesn't have the funds to upgrade 36 to a freeway between North St. Paul and Stillwater, even though they have long wanted to.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7512/15665248228_2e4171c190.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/pShuwG)IMG_6663 (https://flic.kr/p/pShuwG) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
Quote from: on_wisconsin on June 03, 2013, 11:20:48 PM
FYI, here is the land in question:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv704%2Fpackerfan386%2Fbraun-stillwater_zps077b4530.png&hash=8e436aa90a8ebe90dbf742949c960c73055bf311)
I thought I had read somewhere that WisDOT plans on using a portion of the old ROW as a casting and staging yard. Then selling the land when that stage is complete.
I've been doing research for an article, and realized this actually isn't the "Braun" ROW, it's the 1995 FEIS right-of-way (that alternative got as far as final design and acquisition and clearing of the ROW before being stopped. The Braun ROW was never acquired and was farther north. It's the blue dashed "consensus alternative" on this map.
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/stcroix/pdfs/stillw_xingPastAlts.pdf
The 2006 Stakeholders Group / Supplemental FEIS moved it to about where the "south tunnel" alternative is on the map. This made the bridge more perpendicular to the river and slightly shorter, but necessitated that 100 degree turn in Wisconsin since the land in the middle had been lost to development.
I found the Sellwood Bridge website, this is one idea of what the "2nd Braun Bridge" might have looked like had it been built.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.katu.com%2Fimages%2F120719-Sellwood-Bridge-Rendering-660.jpg&hash=89ecc38d151459a789ca2e129444868977990c46)
Part I on a series of articles I'm writing about the bridge.
http://streets.mn/2015/02/07/the-stillwater-bridge-story/
Quote from: Mdcastle on February 08, 2015, 10:04:47 AM
Part I on a series of articles I'm writing about the bridge.
http://streets.mn/2015/02/07/the-stillwater-bridge-story/
Great job finding the information. Well done!
Part II
http://streets.mn/2015/04/07/the-stillwater-bridge-story-ii/
Part III
http://streets.mn/2015/04/22/the-stillwater-bridge-story-iii/
Part IV
http://streets.mn/2015/05/03/the-stillwater-bridge-story-iv/
Horizontal construction over the river starting
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/371/18404316234_a4f68e0c5b_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/u3jW29)IMG_7381 (https://flic.kr/p/u3jW29) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
Quote from: Mdcastle on June 21, 2015, 02:11:05 PM
Part II
http://streets.mn/2015/04/07/the-stillwater-bridge-story-ii/
Part III
http://streets.mn/2015/04/22/the-stillwater-bridge-story-iii/
Part IV
http://streets.mn/2015/05/03/the-stillwater-bridge-story-iv/
Horizontal construction over the river starting
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/371/18404316234_a4f68e0c5b_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/u3jW29)IMG_7381 (https://flic.kr/p/u3jW29) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
Nice. What was the time table again for finishing the bridge?
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 21, 2015, 06:14:51 PM
Nice. What was the time table again for finishing the bridge?
Fall 2016. Wisconsin is realigning WIS 64 to tie in.
I knew that about 64. Just didn't recall the date.
A general schedule:
1950s-2012 endless bickering, controversy, funding problems, and lawsuits.
2012: Design work starts
2013 Foundations built, MN approach work starts, Design work completed
2014 Vertical construction starts, MN approach work continues, WI approach works starts
Early 2015: Horizontal construction starts, MN approach work completed, WI approach work continues
Late 2015: Vertical construction completed, horizontal construction and WI approach work continues.
2016 Horizontal construction completed, WI approach work completed, bridge opens in the fall.
I got an email today that the Minnesota-side approach work is now finished.
First tower has risen to it's full height.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/294/20185556096_8247467883.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/wKJfzf)IMG_7769 (https://flic.kr/p/wKJfzf) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
I love all these pictures of the bridge going up. Please keep them coming!
There's quite a few I don't post here as to not clutter up the board and laziness on my Flickr page. Two more pictures from Saturday, of new signs,
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/462/19589179474_3dbb1b7653.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/vR2EzG)IMG_7751 (https://flic.kr/p/vR2EzG) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/384/19590822783_a9f97bd39d.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/vRb65B)IMG_7728 (https://flic.kr/p/vRb65B) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
Quote from: Mdcastle on August 03, 2015, 09:22:11 AM
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/384/19590822783_a9f97bd39d.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/vRb65B)
:-o Those have got to be some of the ugliest border radii I've seen in a long time. Someone needs a lesson on how to use the offset command in CAD.
Could they get any sloppier on the temporary cover? It almost fits.
The opening has been delayed, according to MnDOT. See here: http://m.jsonline.com/news/bridge-connecting-minnesota-wisconsin-delayed-until-2017-b99571008z1-324535601.html (http://m.jsonline.com/news/bridge-connecting-minnesota-wisconsin-delayed-until-2017-b99571008z1-324535601.html)
Some from the last trip of the year
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/765/23191968225_67ddc053da.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/BkoUa8)IMG_8389 (https://flic.kr/p/BkoUa8) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5687/22563468914_30274e76e2.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/AnRFd7)IMG_8392 (https://flic.kr/p/AnRFd7) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5744/23191958355_4a98ed2fc2.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/BkoRdX)IMG_8394 (https://flic.kr/p/BkoRdX) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5643/22563463354_b917ab6889.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/AnRDyf)IMG_8395 (https://flic.kr/p/AnRDyf) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5808/23191952555_ae79187467.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/BkoPuX)IMG_8397 (https://flic.kr/p/BkoPuX) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5709/22564881523_55f13de5be.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/AnYV8r)IMG_8402 (https://flic.kr/p/AnYV8r) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/577/23191942935_5ba0ff9a04.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/BkoLD6)IMG_8406 (https://flic.kr/p/BkoLD6) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/648/22823975619_70c1f55141.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ALSQM2)IMG_8408 (https://flic.kr/p/ALSQM2) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/713/23191939515_d8a8a51a90.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/BkoKC8)IMG_8409 (https://flic.kr/p/BkoKC8) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
The opening of the bridge, which has already been delayed to Fall 2017 may now be further delayed due to a contractor screw-up where they didn't give themselves enough space for the equipment used to tighten the bridge cables, which may result in having to demolish and rebuild that part of the structure entirely.
By the way, Lunda Construction is the same company that MnDOT eventually fired from the I-494 Wakota Bridge rebuild due to repeated fuckups, although Lunda won the re-bid.
http://kstp.com/news/mndot-concerns-work-stalled-st-croix-crossing-bridge-minnesota-department-of-transportation-lunda-construction/4238574/?cat=1
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 20, 2016, 02:54:15 AM
The opening of the bridge, which has already been delayed to Fall 2017 may now be further delayed due to a contractor screw-up where they didn't give themselves enough space for the equipment used to tighten the bridge cables, which may result in having to demolish and rebuild that part of the structure entirely.
By the way, Lunda Construction is the same company that MnDOT eventually fired from the I-494 Wakota Bridge rebuild due to repeated fuckups, although Lunda won the re-bid.
http://kstp.com/news/mndot-concerns-work-stalled-st-croix-crossing-bridge-minnesota-department-of-transportation-lunda-construction/4238574/?cat=1
Sometimes, public bids can really suck. And yes, I'm speaking from experience here.
That's ridiculous. How could they not realize how much space was needed?
BTW, do you have any new pics of the bridge construction?
http://kstp.com/news/st-croix-crossing-contractor-osha-regulations-lunda-construction-mndot-minnesota-department-of-transportation/4239917/ (http://kstp.com/news/st-croix-crossing-contractor-osha-regulations-lunda-construction-mndot-minnesota-department-of-transportation/4239917/)
Seems thats not the only problem the company has. Having worked with OSHA before they aren't extremely harsh unless the violations are idiotic. Most times they want to make you aware of the issues and see you correct them.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 20, 2016, 02:54:15 AM
The opening of the bridge, which has already been delayed to Fall 2017 may now be further delayed due to a contractor screw-up where they didn't give themselves enough space for the equipment used to tighten the bridge cables, which may result in having to demolish and rebuild that part of the structure entirely.
By the way, Lunda Construction is the same company that MnDOT eventually fired from the I-494 Wakota Bridge rebuild due to repeated fuckups, although Lunda won the re-bid.
http://kstp.com/news/mndot-concerns-work-stalled-st-croix-crossing-bridge-minnesota-department-of-transportation-lunda-construction/4238574/?cat=1
Sounds like what MnDOT needs to do is delist this particular contractor from their approval list. (Or make a list if they don't have one.)
I saw the bridge Friday but couldn't get pictures. I saw MN 5 has been truncated somewhere now
Back to MN 120, as got discussed last year in another thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6510.msg2066596#msg2066596).
Which sadly I actually commented on and forgot about it. Did notice I focused more on how they should move 5 to Shepard Road.
Haven't had much luck this year with pictures. The first batch disappeared off my memory card and the second batch I had water in my lens...
(https://c8.staticflickr.com/9/8649/29133130711_58a27866ea.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/LooUM6)IMG_9293 (https://flic.kr/p/LooUM6) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/9/8314/29103861882_8a4181251c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/LkNUb7)IMG_9435 (https://flic.kr/p/LkNUb7) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8447/29103859712_d3ec63a15f.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/LkNTwG)IMG_9447 (https://flic.kr/p/LkNTwG) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/9/8466/28591159643_548a486eb4.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/KyvaEk)IMG_9449 (https://flic.kr/p/KyvaEk) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/9/8411/28589042834_05c7ba4b2f.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/KyjjpC)IMG_9455 (https://flic.kr/p/KyjjpC) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://c8.staticflickr.com/9/8378/29133238711_66cf41f73b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/LopsTa)IMG_9456 (https://flic.kr/p/LopsTa) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/9/8117/29211664635_2036c27ec4.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Lvkqbg)IMG_9460 (https://flic.kr/p/Lvkqbg) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
Quote from: Mdcastle on August 24, 2016, 09:12:48 PM
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/9/8314/29103861882_8a4181251c.jpg)IMG_9435 (https://flic.kr/p/LkNUb7) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
I don't care what anyone says, I think this is a model. :-D
Pretty sure that's a Hazzard County Sheriff's car on the model...
Quote from: Mdcastle on August 24, 2016, 09:12:48 PM
the second batch I had water in my lens...
Those pictures must be a dream sequence. ;) :-D
When will the new Stillwater Bridge be completed? The existing bridge is kind of dinky.
How about you read back through the thread? It was just mentioned at the top of this page.
Sorry, I must have slept through writing yesterday's post.
Aug 2013
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7418/9433450952_9208000ba6.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/fnAUj5)IMG_3035 (https://flic.kr/p/fnAUj5) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
July 2014
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/6/5487/14395904490_fa80485b9e.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nW7LRQ)IMG_5631 (https://flic.kr/p/nW7LRQ) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
June 2015
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/1/342/18406196563_288bebe8e6.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/u3uyYB)IMG_7376 (https://flic.kr/p/u3uyYB) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
Today
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7773/29517731411_d5ae96eefa.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/LYo6aD)IMG_9667 (https://flic.kr/p/LYo6aD) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
Nice progression series. Can tell it's not exactly the same spot, but fairly close.
Has anyone heard of any updates on this story of the contractor needing to maybe demolish part of what they'd done to be able to fit the machinery inside? Did they ever solve this without that drastic action? Any timetable updates?
http://kstp.com/news/minnesota-department-of-transporation-mndot-st-croix-crossing-bridge-minnesota-wisconsin/4282145/ (http://kstp.com/news/minnesota-department-of-transporation-mndot-st-croix-crossing-bridge-minnesota-wisconsin/4282145/)
Seems they did, last segment was hoisted into place last week.
Excellent !
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/6/5695/30663414850_508603e370.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/NHC1Wo)IMG_0054 (https://flic.kr/p/NHC1Wo) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5818/22786395568_c06fb0c617.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/AHyex7)IMG_0052 (https://flic.kr/p/AHyex7) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/6/5639/30848598482_0089ff0180.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/NZZ8zC)IMG_0044 (https://flic.kr/p/NZZ8zC) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://c5.staticflickr.com/6/5497/22786391988_38889d7e82.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/AHydto)IMG_0064 (https://flic.kr/p/AHydto) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
Photos also available on North Star Highways (not updated with these newest ones yet)
https://northstarhighways.wordpress.com/2016/10/15/st-croix-crossing-photo-gallery-part-i/
https://northstarhighways.wordpress.com/2016/10/16/st-croix-crossing-photo-gallery-part-ii/
Also on North Star Highways, my background series, originally published in four parts by a local urban issues blog
https://northstarhighways.wordpress.com/2016/09/03/the-stillwater-bridge-story-part-1-the-backstory-behind-the-bridge/
https://northstarhighways.wordpress.com/2016/09/05/the-stillwater-bridge-story-part-2-design-revisions-and-the-future-of-downtown-stillwater/
The last of the structural concrete work on the bridge proper is done so there's an unbroken span across the river now. Opening day has been narrowed down to "August" instead of the previous "Fall".
...
Looks good Mdcastle. How is the construction of the approaches coming? Are the finished already?
MN approach has not changed since the previous picture except the eastbound off-ramp has been restriped for one-way traffic. Northbound to Westbound and Eastbound to Northbound have the double left turn lanes open, but where the ramps meet the mainline they didn't temporarily widen it, so both directions narrow down to one lane at that point.
WI approach they still haven't backfilled against the abutment, so there's like a 15 foot drop coming off the bridge still.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4284/35164836642_f943f0c590.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/VzoYNW)IMG_0660 (https://flic.kr/p/VzoYNW) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4197/35164835282_e405505107.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/VzoYpu)IMG_0662 (https://flic.kr/p/VzoYpu) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4205/35164838742_bebcb7ee6f.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/VzoZr9)IMG_0652 (https://flic.kr/p/VzoZr9) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4215/35164840022_90d83e7683.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/VzoZPd)IMG_0645 (https://flic.kr/p/VzoZPd) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4236/34944297670_a8d0f09357.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/VeUEfS)IMG_0644 (https://flic.kr/p/VeUEfS) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4213/34521601043_ddbb152353.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/UAyegZ)IMG_0641 (https://flic.kr/p/UAyegZ) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
Dedication Ceremony scheduled for 2 August.
Cool! Thanks for the photos!
That bridge is coming along quite nicely and complements the river quite well!
My local newspaper reported that there will be a ribbon-cutting ceremony on August 2, although it might not be open to traffic until later that week.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4300/36108503775_252d6be51a.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/X1MwaV)IMG_0740 (https://flic.kr/p/X1MwaV) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4294/36108504565_86c4f4918e.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/X1Mwpx)IMG_0739 (https://flic.kr/p/X1Mwpx) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
They are saying it will be open within 24 hours of the ribbon cutting.
Quote from: Mdcastle on July 23, 2017, 10:09:00 AM
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4300/36108503775_252d6be51a.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/X1MwaV)IMG_0740 (https://flic.kr/p/X1MwaV) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
Now
THAT is one of the more impressive new U.S. bridge structures I've seen in years! Saw all the illustrations, mock-ups, and "work in progress" photos posted over the last few years; but this "in the flesh" view, so to speak, puts it all together!
Is anyone here going to the project dedication/ribbon cutting ceremony? I was considering going myself, and it could become a mini-meetup if anyone else will also attend. (I'm not able to attend the actual Twin Cities meetup three days later.)
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on July 27, 2017, 04:56:19 AM
Is anyone here going to the project dedication/ribbon cutting ceremony? I was considering going myself, and it could become a mini-meetup if anyone else will also attend. (I'm not able to attend the actual Twin Cities meetup three days later.)
I'm off work that day so I could definitely go. (You can send me a message on FB if you want; we're not personally connected yet but I know you're on my page)
So after all that they only put two lanes each direction? Though it looks like they can easily expand to three.
Quote from: texaskdog on July 27, 2017, 11:40:47 AM
So after all that they only put two lanes each direction? Though it looks like they can easily expand to three.
Why would they need more than two lanes?
Three would be overkill.
As for the ribbon cutting, I'll have my wife in town with me next week so I'm probably out unless by chance she finds something to do with my aunt.
There will also be a small public ceremony about 6 PM on Wednesday night in Stillwater at the site of the current lift bridge to commemorate the decommissioning of the bridge from motor vehicle service, note that this is not the official time the bridge will be closed to cars and trucks. The city says they do not know what time that will be.
Oak Park Heights is hosting an ice cream social immediately following the ribbon-cutting ceremony.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on July 31, 2017, 01:55:15 AM
There will also be a small public ceremony about 6 PM on Wednesday night in Stillwater at the site of the current lift bridge to commemorate the decommissioning of the bridge from motor vehicle service, note that this is not the official time the bridge will be closed to cars and trucks. The city says they do not know what time that will be.
Oak Park Heights is hosting an ice cream social immediately following the ribbon-cutting ceremony.
Even with the old bridge being closed to motor vehicle traffic, what is its current expected lifetime in 'trail' service?
Mike
Given that repairs to the existing bridge were recently done, and additional repairs will be part of the changeover to a bike/ped path, it should get at least a couple more decades.
Meanwhile, passed through the area this afternoon...portable VMS were saying the existing lift bridge will close Thursday (the 3rd).
Do you think the full traffic switchover will have been completed by, say, 5pm on Thursday evening the 3rd?
I'd like to take a little trip after work that night.
Probably, given the portable VMS messages I mentioned yesterday.
Not that I'd want to be on 36 at 5pm, however....still going to have the bottleneck through Oak Park Heights.
No one wants to give a straight answer as to the time, but rumors are the traffic switch will be overnight from the 2nd to the 3rd. Stillwater is planning a party from 6:00 until the bridge closes.
I forget where, but I recall "75 years" being the lifespan of the lift bridge as a pedestrian structure.
Quote from: froggie on August 01, 2017, 10:10:34 AM
Probably, given the portable VMS messages I mentioned yesterday.
Not that I'd want to be on 36 at 5pm, however....still going to have the bottleneck through Oak Park Heights.
I'll be coming from the Wisconsin side.
PTO at work was full but I got a request approved to make up the time later in the week so I'll be there.
I confirmed what I suspected with how evasive and non-committal Mn/DOT has been when asked- the exact opening time is supposed to be a secret because they don't want swarms of people around, possibly even doing something stupid like driving around barricades to try to be first. I'm assuming at least on the Wisconsin side they'll have to completely halt traffic for a short time. I'm guessing eastbound will be opened first, because new westbound traffic would interfere with old eastbound traffic at the Wisconsin meeting point.
Picture of the bridge from the westbound lanes at the dedication right now:
(https://i.imgur.com/hxcDDMZ.jpg)
(Not even this can keep me off the forums :))
https://youtu.be/ZeAnC3dRRZI
Bus trip across the new bridge.
I just read the new bridge will open at 8pm tonight (Tues. Aug. 2.)
MnDOT sent that out in a release...should be open now. Lift Bridge will close tomorrow (if they haven't already).
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4384/36343423375_5a5774855e.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/XnxxzR)IMG_0956 (https://flic.kr/p/XnxxzR) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
Lift bridge was closed right at 8. The whole scene was a party with motorists honking, pedestrians lining the street and swarming the street as soon as it was closed.
Quote from: Mdcastle on August 02, 2017, 11:18:49 PM
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4384/36343423375_5a5774855e.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/XnxxzR)IMG_0956 (https://flic.kr/p/XnxxzR) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
Lift bridge was closed right at 8. The whole scene was a party with motorists honking, pedestrians lining the street and swarming the street as soon as it was closed.
That is a beautiful thing.
As the day turned out, I ended up having to go into Minneapolis after work last night.
On the way back to Wisconsin, I decided to detour north to try out the new bridge. I ended up clinching the newly configured Minnesota 36.
Traffic free-flows straight across the river now, and goes directly into the now-completed Wisconsin 64 expressway, which is now 4-lane all the way to New Richmond. The speed limit on the bridge itself is 55, increasing to 65 once in Wisconsin.
The eastbound lanes on 64 were completely open. Heading back westbound, the newly-opened part was fully open, however the part further back that was still 2-lane so that it could plug into old 35/64 to head to the lift bridge hasn't been re-lined and fully opened yet. That was single lane until you were past the point where the new part took over.
There are BEGIN 64/END 36 and BEGIN 36/END 64 signs in exactly the same place eastbound/westbound on the Wisconsin side of the bridge a little way past where you're on land. I guess this technically means that Minnesota 36 is now signed about a half-mile into Wisconsin, since I know the state line is down the middle of the river channel.
I did three trips over it... eastbound as far as the CTH V exit (4), then back across westbound, exiting into downtown Stillwater so I could drive through downtown to see what that looked like now the lift bridge was closed, then back eastbound exiting off on Exit 1 for Highway 35 south towards Hudson. Getting on 35 south is more circuitous now, as you have to go through three roundabouts to do it, and backtrack a bit west to get to it. At some point in the next week or two I need to go back to see what's being done with the old 2-lane alignment of 35/64 through there... is it becoming county road, and if so what letter, or is it just being dropped completely to township control?
It was 7pm by the time I drove through downtown Stillwater, so I can't tell the change in traffic at rush hour, of course, but at 7pm it felt more like I was driving through downtown Hudson than the gridlock that Stillwater so often was. Still busy, but not impossible anymore. And the highway signage for the old crossing has already all been taken down.
It occurred to me that if you could wave a magic wand and get rid of the 7 or 8 traffic signals on Minnesota 36 that you could almost have a full interstate highway now from New Richmond, WI to Minneapolis and 35W. Wonder what number it'd get...
One last thing. Highway 35 from there to Hudson is now even more heavily signed with ALT 64 and ALT 94 signage than it was. The ALT 94 I get, but I'm slightly confused why they felt the need to further emphasize an Alternate 64 when they don't do that with any of the other river-crossing highways in the area, like US 10 in Prescott or 243 up by Osceola or US 8. It made sense to do that for 64 when it still relied on the lift bridge because the bridge so often broke down or could be flooded over for weeks, but this new bridge shouldn't have those issues.
QuoteThere are BEGIN 64/END 36 and BEGIN 36/END 64 signs in exactly the same place eastbound/westbound on the Wisconsin side of the bridge a little way past where you're on land. I guess this technically means that Minnesota 36 is now signed about a half-mile into Wisconsin, since I know the state line is down the middle of the river channel.
This was documented previously by Monte, and I field-checked it myself last week. The begin/end signs are on either side of the WI 35 overpass. If we use the overpass as the "median location", then it's technically about 0.4mi into Wisconsin. However, they're only a few hundred feet from the east end of the bridge. Though I haven't seen anything official to confirm this, the placement of the begin/end signs suggests that MnDOT will own the bridge.
Another theory is that MnDOT and WisDOT preferred having those signs on land instead of the middle of the bridge, and it was easier to do so on the Wisconsin side given the MN 95 interchange location.
QuoteIt occurred to me that if you could wave a magic wand and get rid of the 7 or 8 traffic signals on Minnesota 36 that you could almost have a full interstate highway now from New Richmond, WI to Minneapolis and 35W. Wonder what number it'd get...
Given MnDOT, it wouldn't. Furthermore, 36 is not Interstate-grade where it is freeway. Shoulders, most ramps, and the interchange spacing through Roseville are all substandard. There are also a couple at-grade intersections on 64 between Somerset and New Richmond.
Quote from: froggie on August 04, 2017, 11:17:03 AM
QuoteThere are BEGIN 64/END 36 and BEGIN 36/END 64 signs in exactly the same place eastbound/westbound on the Wisconsin side of the bridge a little way past where you're on land. I guess this technically means that Minnesota 36 is now signed about a half-mile into Wisconsin, since I know the state line is down the middle of the river channel.
This was documented previously by Monte, and I field-checked it myself last week. The begin/end signs are on either side of the WI 35 overpass. If we use the overpass as the "median location", then it's technically about 0.4mi into Wisconsin. However, they're only a few hundred feet from the east end of the bridge. Though I haven't seen anything official to confirm this, the placement of the begin/end signs suggests that MnDOT will own the bridge.
Another theory is that MnDOT and WisDOT preferred having those signs on land instead of the middle of the bridge, and it was easier to do so on the Wisconsin side given the MN 95 interchange location.
I saw those on the shuttle ride, and thought they were really strange. I don't know that I've ever seen another state line crossing signed like that before.
Quote from: froggie on August 04, 2017, 11:17:03 AMThis was documented previously by Monte, and I field-checked it myself last week. The begin/end signs are on either side of the WI 35 overpass. If we use the overpass as the "median location", then it's technically about 0.4mi into Wisconsin. However, they're only a few hundred feet from the east end of the bridge. Though I haven't seen anything official to confirm this, the placement of the begin/end signs suggests that MnDOT will own the bridge.
I think the bridge is primarily MnDOT's responsibility, though any major changes will doubtless require the concurrence of WisDOT in respect of actions within Wisconsin or effects on infrastructure there.
The plans for the extradosed bridge (which has MnDOT bridge number 82045, the first two digits referring to County 82, Washington County) are sealed by two professional engineers registered in Minnesota. However, they also bear the signatures of the state bridge engineers for both Minnesota and Wisconsin, and have both MnDOT (8221-82045) and WisDOT (8110-02-70) project numbers.
The state line falls in the St. Croix River just to the east of Pier 10. Piers count up from the west abutment, just on the west side of TH 95, and the east abutment is just east of Pier 13. Piers 8-12 carry the cabling for the extradosed spans.
Quote from: froggie on August 04, 2017, 11:17:03 AMAnother theory is that MnDOT and WisDOT preferred having those signs on land instead of the middle of the bridge, and it was easier to do so on the Wisconsin side given the MN 95 interchange location.
I think this theory applies. Another factor is that, in general, WisDOT does not consider END assemblies to delimit actual jurisdictional boundaries, and often posts them well in advance of end of route or end of state maintenance, quite often just past the JCT assembly for routes which end at tee intersections.
In any discussion of whom is responsible for what, paperwork--and not the signing in the field--will almost certainly be referred to.
Edit: If you have an opportunity to inspect the bridge on foot, there should be a stateline marker on the north side, just between the centerline of Pier 10 and the first cable touchdown as you go east.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 04, 2017, 02:11:45 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 04, 2017, 11:17:03 AMThis was documented previously by Monte, and I field-checked it myself last week. The begin/end signs are on either side of the WI 35 overpass. If we use the overpass as the "median location", then it's technically about 0.4mi into Wisconsin. However, they're only a few hundred feet from the east end of the bridge. Though I haven't seen anything official to confirm this, the placement of the begin/end signs suggests that MnDOT will own the bridge.
I think the bridge is primarily MnDOT's responsibility, though any major changes will doubtless require the concurrence of WisDOT in respect of actions within Wisconsin or effects on infrastructure there.
The plans for the extradosed bridge (which has MnDOT bridge number 82045, the first two digits referring to County 82, Washington County) are sealed by two professional engineers registered in Minnesota. However, they also bear the signatures of the state bridge engineers for both Minnesota and Wisconsin, and have both MnDOT (8221-82045) and WisDOT (8110-02-70) project numbers.
The state line falls in the St. Croix River just to the east of Pier 10. Piers count up from the west abutment, just on the west side of TH 95, and the east abutment is just east of Pier 13. Piers 8-12 carry the cabling for the extradosed spans.
Quote from: froggie on August 04, 2017, 11:17:03 AMAnother theory is that MnDOT and WisDOT preferred having those signs on land instead of the middle of the bridge, and it was easier to do so on the Wisconsin side given the MN 95 interchange location.
I think this theory applies. Another factor is that, in general, WisDOT does not consider END assemblies to delimit actual jurisdictional boundaries, and often posts them well in advance of end of route or end of state maintenance, quite often just past the JCT assembly for routes which end at tee intersections.
In any discussion of whom is responsible for what, paperwork--and not the signing in the field--will almost certainly be referred to.
Edit: If you have an opportunity to inspect the bridge on foot, there should be a stateline marker on the north side, just between the centerline of Pier 10 and the first cable touchdown as you go east.
Wisconsin is also in the habit of signing the real Welcome Signs a bit further inside of the state boundary. I-39/90 at Beloit is one of the few exceptions because it is at State Line Rd with a cheap green sign. But the huge redish/brownish wood sign is about 3/4 of a mile north of that bridge. Same on I-94 in Pleasant Prairie and US 151 north of Dubuque.
I figured the END/BEGIN signs were WISDOT's simply because of the wooden posts, which MnDOT does not use anywhere.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 04, 2017, 02:11:45 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 04, 2017, 11:17:03 AM
I think the bridge is primarily MnDOT's responsibility, though any major changes will doubtless require the concurrence of WisDOT in respect of actions within Wisconsin or effects on infrastructure there.
The bridge is MnDOT's responsibility and the project website was hosted on there, but costs are split between the states. You can tell by the light pole and fixture style as well as the bridge parapet style. I-94 is WISDOT responsibility, while in Superior/Duluth I-535 is MnDOT and US 2 is WISDOT.
https://streets.mn/2017/08/07/the-stillwater-bridge-story-part-five/
A new color emerges.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1784/42573649805_9c1c1dbbb7.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/27S65QV)IMG_1504 (https://flic.kr/p/27S65QV) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
Will there be any bridge structure left there when that sandblasting is completed?
:wow:
Mike
I got an email from MnDOT today about a new book that they and WisDOT have put out about the old Lift Bridge. You can find a .pdf copy of the book here (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/liftbridge/pdf/liftbridgepublication.pdf). Hard copies can be bought here (https://www.mnbookstore.com/our-featured-products/the-stillwater-lift-bridge-14641.html).
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on May 08, 2019, 12:04:48 PM
I got an email from MnDOT today about a new book that they and WisDOT have put out about the old Lift Bridge. You can find a .pdf copy of the book here (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/liftbridge/pdf/liftbridgepublication.pdf). Hard copies can be bought here (https://www.mnbookstore.com/our-featured-products/the-stillwater-lift-bridge-14641.html).
I especially like the 1920s Wisconsin highway map on page 23:
QuoteYou Cannot get Lost in Wisconsin If You Get a Reliable Map and Follow The Official Markers
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on May 08, 2019, 12:04:48 PM
I got an email from MnDOT today about a new book that they and WisDOT have put out about the old Lift Bridge. You can find a .pdf copy of the book here (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/liftbridge/pdf/liftbridgepublication.pdf). Hard copies can be bought here (https://www.mnbookstore.com/our-featured-products/the-stillwater-lift-bridge-14641.html).
Really enjoy the nice reminder where the Sierra Club got owned in their wasted effort to stop the bridge with numerous lawsuits with the passage of the bill authorizing the bridge in congress. It just shows how NEPA and the wild and scenic rivers act needs revisions, one key revision being they should have been responsible to put up collateral for the additional costs for the project that their lawsuits caused due to delays. It's just as satisfying as watching the 1000 friends of Wisconsin lawsuit get dropped so four lane Hwy 23 construction between Fond Du Lac and Plymouth in Wisconsin could proceed (and while the project got delayed many people continued to get injured or died in crashes on the old two lane road). These groups need to be held responsible for their actions and the consequences that they create as well.
Quote from: Roadguy on May 09, 2019, 08:27:43 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on May 08, 2019, 12:04:48 PM
I got an email from MnDOT today about a new book that they and WisDOT have put out about the old Lift Bridge. You can find a .pdf copy of the book here (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/liftbridge/pdf/liftbridgepublication.pdf). Hard copies can be bought here (https://www.mnbookstore.com/our-featured-products/the-stillwater-lift-bridge-14641.html).
Really enjoy the nice reminder where the Sierra Club got owned in their wasted effort to stop the bridge with numerous lawsuits with the passage of the bill authorizing the bridge in congress. It just shows how NEPA and the wild and scenic rivers act needs revisions, one key revision being they should have been responsible to put up collateral for the additional costs for the project that their lawsuits caused due to delays. It's just as satisfying as watching the 1000 friends of Wisconsin lawsuit get dropped so four lane Hwy 23 construction between Fond Du Lac and Plymouth in Wisconsin could proceed (and while the project got delayed many people continued to get injured or died in crashes on the old two lane road). These groups need to be held responsible for their actions and the consequences that they create as well.
Yeah it's so cool that these groups who try to save our environmental resources lose in court so people can save 10 minutes of their time driving places. :-/
And that revision in the law would make it absolutely impossible for these suits to move forward. And that would be terrible. Yeah the process can be streamlined but your idea is a non-starter.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 09, 2019, 09:43:20 AM
Yeah it's so cool that these groups who try to save our environmental resources lose in court so people can save 10 minutes of their time driving places. :-/
At least in the case of the St. Croix crossing, it was about way more than just ten minutes of travel time savings, so I don't know what you're talking about there.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on May 09, 2019, 09:53:15 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 09, 2019, 09:43:20 AM
Yeah it's so cool that these groups who try to save our environmental resources lose in court so people can save 10 minutes of their time driving places. :-/
At least in the case of the St. Croix crossing, it was about way more than just ten minutes of travel time savings, so I don't know what you're talking about there.
Hyperbole is lost on many....
^^ Unless/until the signals between 694 and Stillwater get removed, 10 minutes really is around the average time savings. Less than that for those who live between 94 and 64.
Quote from: froggie on May 09, 2019, 01:02:15 PM
^^ Unless/until the signals between 694 and Stillwater get removed, 10 minutes really is around the average time savings. Less than that for those who live between 94 and 64.
That wasn't my point. The time savings,
regardless of the amount of time saved, isn't the only benefit to the new crossing.
So the Lift Bridge is going to reopen "Late Fall", instead of "June" as originally planned. I was going to see if anyone might be interested in a mini-meet of some kind this summer, but obviously that's not a feasible now.
The middle of last summer the lift span was disabled so the mechanism could be rehabilitated and the structure shrouded, blasted, and repainted, and one of the fixed spans was removed and put on a barge so boats could get through. At the end of the official operating season the fixed span was put back into place. In the past Mn/DOT would lift the bridge outside of the season if given 24 hours notice, but that wasn't the case the last off-season, the river was simply closed.
The plan was to finish work on the lift span enough to get if functional this spring, but then we had one of the three wettest springs on record, with the flooding they had to pull their equipment off the bridge and demobilize. The lift span was manually raised (with a crane or something) and bolted into the up position to let boats through and protect it from debris. As soon as they can work on it again a fixed span will again be removed to allow boats through and the lift span manually lowered so rehabiltation can proceed.
All the other trail work is done, although Wisconsin closed off the trail-head and WI 35 underpass and the trail down to the bridge is also closed.
Bump.WisDOT recently posted some interesting pics on Twitter from an biannual inspection of the span:
(https://i.imgur.com/goykMtl.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/BWftc2N.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/7vRNpOr.jpg)
Quotehttps://twitter.com/WisDOTnorthwest/status/1421108319469584387
They should tweet that at ARDOT. ;)
Today (8/14) marks official opening of the long awaited Loop Trail featuring both new and old bridges, plus downtown Stillwater. Although the trail itself was quietly opened last year, some finishing work remained and COVID nixed any chance of a grand opening ceremony.
QuoteStillwater Lift & Loop celebration, postponed for a year, promises fireworks, fun
Last year's planned grand-opening celebration of the Loop Trail connecting the new St. Croix River bridge and the Stillwater Lift Bridge had to be canceled because of COVID-19.
Organizers of this weekend's Lift & Loop event are making up for it with a two-day extravaganza that includes fireworks, food trucks, live music, bike rodeo, trail walk and street dance.
"COVID messed up the whole big celebration we planned for last year," said Stillwater City Council member Mike Polehna, organizer of the event. "But we knew it was important to mark the one-year anniversary of the trail being here for our community."
The 4.7-mile Loop Trail is a bicycle and walking trail that connects Minnesota and Wisconsin via the Stillwater Lift Bridge and the new bridge...
Full article: https://www.twincities.com/2021/08/12/stillwater-lift-loop-celebration-postponed-for-a-year-promises-fireworks-fun/
The opening is last stage of the project and (hopefully) completes the 50+ year saga surrounding it.
I intend to bike the loop in a week and a half when I'm back home. Also gives me an excuse to stop in Houlton and grab some New Glarus.
I'm pretty sure Monte's already biked it. Curious whether the incline heading into Wisconsin is steeper on the new bridge or the old Hwy 64 alignment.