Congresswoman McCollum's Statement on St. Croix Crossing "Megabridge" Opposed by Taxpayers for Common Sense

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 A bridge in this location is warranted to replace an outdated lift bridge, but needs to be done at a far lower cost.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