Three Arguments Against the Stillwater Bridge, and Two Reasons It Will Pass Anyway

We’ve already covered the Stillwater Bridge debate like a North Dakota blanket both here, and on our individual blogs. So it comes as a big of a disappointment that the vote on an unprecedented  violation of environmental regulations to make a new freeway past Stillwater and over a new freeway bridge into a new freeway in Wisconsin farmland is expected in the US House tomorrow.

I thought I’d add a bit more of my thoughts on it. Here are three of the reasons people usually give for why we need a new freeway past Stillwater.

 

#1) What They Say: We Need a New Bridge for Future Traffic

The Argument Goes Something Like This: “projected demand is expected to grow by [insert percent] by [insert year]. We need a new bridge to accommodate all this traffic…”

The Reality: Freeways produce traffic. Freeways increase demand. The more freeways we build, the more traffic we create as more and more people move farther away and drive more often and more quickly.

When this bridge was first proposed in the mid 90’s, sure traffic was growing at a quick pace. Suburbia was expanding everywhere, and the Twin Cities was sprawling out to encompass all kinds of Western Wisconsin.

Since then, however, two big things have happened. First, the housing market and the economy collapsed big time. Now, there are foreclosed homes all over the suburban ring of the twin cities. Exurban areas have been hit particularly hard.

Second, the gas price is much higher. Michelle Bachmann seems to think that $2 gas is just around the corner. Barring an epic global economic disaster, she’s very wrong. On the contrary, $5 gas is just around the corner.

 

2) What They Say: The Current Bridge is Old and Falling Down

When this photo of a Philadelphia bridge was taken in 1890, it was already 200 years old. This bridge is still in use today.

The argument goes something like this: The current bridge is from 1931! It’s really really old! It’s historic, like the Amish or something. We need a new shiny bridge. Also, it lifts up and down, and people have to wait for boats.

The Reality: As some of my friends here have pointed out, there are many countries all around the world where bridges far older than this one have been maintained and used for a long time. There’s a bridge in Iran that was built by the Sassanid’s (600 AD) that people were driving on until two years ago. (Here’s an example of a “bridge” that’s still being used, even though it was built in 1300 BC.) The oldest bridge still in use in the US is in Philadelphia, and it was built in 1687. Nobody would advocate replacing the stone arch bridge just because it was old, would they?

I like the Stillwater bridge as is, but then again I am also a big fan of walking, ‘slow food’, and things like the ‘idler’ movement. So what if the bridge lifts up and down. Slow down and enjoy your life a bit more. If you’re in a hurry, the I-94 bridge is only six miles away.

 

3) What They Say: There is Too Much Congestion in Downtown Stillwater 

The Argument Goes Something Like This: Traffic is really backed up in downtown Stillwater! Cars are bumper to bumper. They sit there stuck in traffic. Anyone who has lived in Stillwater knows how bad it is. We need to do something!

The Reality: This one is semi-vaguely convincing, but I’m not really sure that a ‘bypass’ around Stillwater will be the best thing for the town in the long run. Lots of small towns used to have congestion in their downtowns, as old US or state highways ran right through the center. When many of those towns built bypasses, almost all of the economic activity also bypassed the downtown. Big new parking lot box stores opened up on the edge of the city by the new freeway, and the stores downtown inevitably closed.

Stillwater may be a different case, because it’s a tourist haven filled with antique stores. But you have to wonder how much of the downtown Stillwater economy will be impacted by a big new freeway bypassing the city completely. It strikes me that the best, cutest, and most charming river towns are the ones (like Alma, WI) where the main road goes right straight down the old main street. Anyone who’s ever walked around the deserted streets of downtown Hastings knows what can happen once auto traffic completely abandons an old main drag.

[On a typical day in downtown Hastings, you won’t find many people.]

 

Why the Stillwater Bridge will it pass anyway? (barring a McCollum / Tea Party miracle) 

1) Short Term Economic Impact

As i’ve written elsewhere, the short term impact of the bridge is jobs for local construction firms and contractors. That’s important to many of the local interests, and local politicains almost typically vote for any kind of ‘project’ or ‘deal’ on this basis alone, regardless of the public policy impacts.

2) Long Term Development Deals

Granted, I haven’t done research on this by looking into property ownership and land sales. But, this bridge has been expected for a long time. That means that all the farm land on the Wisconsin side of the Hudson River, land that is currently corn fields and very sparsely settled, will be worth a fortune once the new freeway is constructed. Many “smart” and well-connected people have bought this land (or are sitting on it), waiting to cash in once the freeway construction is complete.

 

This Bridge Represents a Failure of Vision

These two reasons alone mean that the bridge will likely pass. Very few local politicans in MN or WI have come out against the bridge. There is simply too much institutional inertia pushing for it.

But to me, this represents a serious lack of vision for our government. Government is changing, like it or not. Budget deficits have happen nearly every year for a long time at nearly every level (but especially city and state). We need to think more carefully about how to spend our investment dollars, and make sure that they’ll be put into projects that will be wise in the long-term.

As Chuck has pointed out, the money we’ll be spending on the Stillwater bridge could repair every bridge in the state. And in case you have forgotten 2007, a few of our bridges may need a new gusset plate or two.

The problem is, of course, that federal highway money is going to pay for the lion’s share of the Stillwater project. This means that, from the perspective of state and local politicians, the bridge looks like “free money.” Federal dollars fund our federal interstates, and this situation incentivizes the construction of new projects instead of helping pay for the maintenances of already existing roads. So, as long as current highway funding structure is set up this way, nothing will change. And I’m not very optimistic about stopping this large bridge to nowhere.

 

Still though, if you want to try, call your representative ASAP. The vote is tomorrow!

Streets.mn is a non-profit and is volunteer run. We rely on your support to keep the servers running. If you value what you read, please consider becoming a member.

5 Responses to Three Arguments Against the Stillwater Bridge, and Two Reasons It Will Pass Anyway

  1. Nathaniel M Hood
    Nathaniel M Hood February 29, 2012 at 11:19 am #

    It's great to relate it to Hastings, MN. I've always thought it was prime for an active downtown – but alas, the highway bypass (and the strip malls and big boxes that followed) really hurt the town. Could this be the future of Stillwater? Maybe not that bad, but I think the lack of traffic certainly will not help it's downtown. I'd even argue that congestion in downtown Stillwater is good (sort of a David Owen argument).

    Good article. _Nate

  2. Alex March 1, 2012 at 5:44 am #

    The "incredible project that has incredible, bipartisan support" passed the House as expected. Not surprising that freeway building is the one thing D and R can agree on.

    United We Sprawl, America!

  3. Phil March 1, 2012 at 9:08 am #

    Make that "…WIsconsin side of the ST CROIX River…", not the Hudson River (though Hudson, WI is on the Croix).

  4. Roger Williams March 13, 2012 at 9:26 am #

    Wow, you are psychic, Bill! Because I have been saying these things for a while myself.

    As a Stillwater resident, I cant tell you how infuriating it is to live with so many people who have such short-sightedness. Even businesses think it will bring more business- but as you and I have thought, the new construction will literally drive people away.

    Another rant: Obama will sign it, because he, Klobuchar, and Franken have the AFL-CIO as donors, and it wants union jobs no matter what!

    Who benefits from this? Rich, white, land owners looking to develop, and land developers waiting for farmers to sell off their land. Also, the rich land owners of the upper-st. croix don't want to have to look at any new ugly construction across the river.

    It so pitifully obvious what this is all about. I just find it so hard to believe that these supporters are so easily duped. But then again, the Iraq war happened, didn't it?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Hooray! Hooray! FHWA Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Project Report Released Today! | streets.mn - May 1, 2012

    […] in the current transportation and funding environment, which is definitely focused on pavement and silly bridges, rather than projects that encourage density and environmental progress. However, the data may […]

Note on Comments

streets.mn welcomes opinions from many perspectives. Please refrain from attacking or disparaging others in your comments. streets.mn sees debate as a learning opportunity. Please share your perspective in a respectful manner. View our full comment policy to learn more.

Thanks for commenting on streets.mn!