[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 148 (Wednesday, October 5, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1782]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  ST. CROIX CROSSING ``MEGA-BRIDGE'' OPPOSED BY TAXPAYERS FOR COMMON 
                                 SENSE

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. BETTY McCOLLUM

                              of minnesota

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, October 5, 2011

  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, today, the Natural Resources Committee is 
marking up H.R. 850 which grants an exemption from the Wild and Scenic 
Rivers Act in order to allow construction of a $700 million mega-bridge 
connecting Minnesota and Wisconsin across the St. Croix River. This 
bridge would be located less than six miles from the eight lane 
Interstate 94 crossing of the St. Croix. At a time of extremely scarce 
transportation dollars and tremendous need (Minnesota and Wisconsin 
have more than 2,000 structurally deficient bridges in need of repairs) 
building a single mega-bridge with a cost of $700 million is fiscally 
irresponsible and terrible public policy.
  I strongly oppose H.R. 850 and I am not alone. The conservative 
watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense sent a letter today to 
members of the Natural Resources Committee opposing H.R. 850 and 
states, ``accepting a project that is too big and too expensive for the 
sake of speeding project delivery would be irresponsible at any time, 
and even more so while we are doing everything possible to find our way 
out of a budgetary mess.''
  A St. Croix River crossing that is affordable, meets transportation 
and safety needs, and responsibly scaled should be built, but H.R. 850 
and its companion in the U.S. Senate, S. 1134, are bills that should be 
rejected. I appreciate that the willingness of Taxpayers for Common 
Sense for voicing their concerns about this mega-bridge exemption and I 
have enclosed their letter to the House Natural Resources Committee for 
printing in the Congressional Record.


                                   Taxpayers for common Sense,

                                                  October 4, 2011.

      Oppose H.R. 850: It's Time To Rethink the Stillwater Bridge

       Dear Natural Resources Committee Member: Taxpayers for 
     Common Sense Action urges you to oppose H.R. 850 (``To 
     facilitate a proposed project in the Lower St. Croix Wild and 
     Scenic River'') when it comes before the Natural Resources 
     Committee for your consideration. Proponents argue that this 
     bill will not cost any taxpayer dollars, but granting the 
     proposed bridge between Minnesota and Wisconsin over the St. 
     Croix River an exemption from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 
     is one of the final few steps before taxpayers are asked to 
     pay many millions on a bridge that is far too large in scope 
     and far too expensive. A bridge in this location is warranted 
     to replace an outdated lift bridge, but needs to be done at a 
     far lower cost. The project as proposed should be rejected.
       The current fight over spending cuts and the debt ceiling 
     highlights the immense budget challenges our nation faces, 
     including a trillion-dollar-plus deficit and more than $14 
     trillion in debt. The state of our transportation program is 
     little better, as the highway trust fund collects inadequate 
     funds to meet the nation's transportation challenges. As a 
     result, doing more with less is essential, and the same holds 
     true for the proposed St. Croix River crossing.
       We are deeply concerned about the scale and cost of this 
     project for a number of reasons:
       Driven by a desire to create a ``signature'' bridge for the 
     region, stakeholders chose the most expensive alternative. 
     This would be by far the most expensive bridge ever 
     constructed in Minnesota, and would be more expensive than 
     the cost of two other Minnesota bridges--the I-35W and 
     Lafayette bridges--combined, yet will carry less than 10% as 
     much traffic. When every dollar is scarce, it is simply 
     irresponsible to build signature bridges that place form 
     before function, and asking taxpayers to fund such an 
     expensive project to carry the 18,000 vehicles the current 
     bridge accommodates is simply outrageous.
       According to Minnesota Department of Transportation 
     documents, the so-called ``extradosed'' bridge proposed for 
     this project, comes with ``relatively high cost risk.'' An 
     extradosed bridge--a combination of a box girder bridge and a 
     cable-stayed bridge--is under construction in Connecticut, 
     and that is the only other example of its kind in the U.S. 
     MnDOT lists its own lack of internal expertise regarding such 
     a bridge as a project risk. Though some of the extra risk has 
     been built into the project's cost estimate, there still 
     remains an increased chance of cost overruns.
       Building this bridge would limit the funds available for 
     the other priorities in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Combined, 
     the two states have more than 2,000 deficient bridges and 
     nearly 6 million trips are made across them every day. In 
     addition, nearly half the roads in Minnesota and Wisconsin 
     need additional maintenance to get them back to ``good'' 
     condition. Building such an expensive bridge across the St. 
     Croix, with the chance of significant cost overruns, would 
     seriously hamper each state's ability to perform these vital 
     maintenance efforts in as timely a manner as possible, to say 
     nothing of new facilities that may be required to relieve 
     congestion, improve safety, facilitate commerce, and keep the 
     transportation system moving efficiently.
       There is little question that a new bridge is required at 
     this location to replace the outdated lift bridge that 
     currently carries traffic over the St. Croix, but only if it 
     can be done at a far lower cost than is currently envisioned. 
     The proposed bridge is a relic from a different time: before 
     our nation finally committed to taking care of its budget 
     mess, before the end of the housing boom that dramatically 
     changed the landscape in western Wisconsin, and before the 
     realization that the current state of our transportation 
     program may lead to a cut as deep as 30% from current funding 
     levels in future years.
       At the very least, it is worth taking a hard look at 
     additional alternatives to determine whether we can 
     accommodate the region's transportation needs at a far lower 
     cost to taxpayers, and possibly without an exemption from the 
     Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. We understand that there is an 
     urgency to move forward with a new bridge, but accepting a 
     project that is too big and too expensive for the sake of 
     speeding project delivery would be irresponsible at any time, 
     and even more so while we are doing everything possible to 
     find our way out of a budgetary mess.
       If you would like additional information, please contact 
     Erich Zimmermann in my office at (202) 546-8500 x132.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Ryan Alexander,
     President.

                          ____________________