On warm summer nights, you can sit on restaurant patios in downtown Stillwater or take a stroll and enjoy beautiful views of the St. Croix River and the tree-lined Wisconsin shores.
Some environmentalists would destroy that scenic view and cripple downtown businesses by building a new "lower and slower" bridge that would cut diagonally across the river from shore to shore.
Instead of breathing in the clean night air, diners would be subjected to intoxicating vehicle fumes and the constant rumble of traffic.
That isn't a suitable option to the St. Croix Valley's growing bridge and traffic woes.
While almost everyone agrees that Stillwater's deteriorating two-lane lift bridge needs replacing, a blufftop-to-blufftop option south of town appears the most direct route across the river and the best solution.
After decades of study, the Minnesota Department of Transportation deemed this plan better-suited to the area's traffic needs and less environmentally harmful to the area's bluffs, floodplains and wetlands -- as well as to residential and commercial property -- than "lower and slower" bridge proposals.
At a time when our nation is polarized by the political divide, the blufftop plan has garnered unusual bipartisan support due largely to the efforts of U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. Several Republican and Democratic congressional leaders from Minnesota and Wisconsin are on board. So, too, are the state's governors -- one a Democrat, the other a Republican.
Under the blufftop plan, the much-needed bridge would be built south of downtown Stillwater, relieving the area of the congestion, pollution and safety hazards wrought by highway traffic. It would be a four-lane, freeway-style bridge with pedestrian paths.
An eyesore? Hardly. Construction on the Minnesota side would occur in a not-so-scenic industrial area surrounded by a sewage treatment facility and power plant with a giant smokestack that routinely spews clouds of vapor.
Unlike the basic concrete box girder design of the I-35W bridge, the proposed St. Croix Crossing would be an extradosed design (think columns and cables), which would be better-suited to the area's character.
The estimated cost of the bridge is $292 million (the I-35W replacement bridge cost $234 million), with an additional $340 million needed for engineering, highway and other expenditures, including mitigation items, such as preserving historical landmarks.
Costs are to be shared by Minnesota and Wisconsin, though the Badger State's funding sources remain uncertain. The Minnesota Department of Transportation, on the other hand, says it has already set aside $160 million in federal funding and $203 million in trunk highway bonding for the effort.
As we first argued on this page in 2009, some type of toll system should be included to offset costs and at least provide a modest check on sprawl.
Gov. Mark Dayton and others are right in saying that a new bridge shouldn't be based current needs.
More than 18,000 vehicles cross the Lift Bridge each day, but the number continues to swell as the area's population surges. Over the last decade, Washington County saw an 18 percent population increase, while Wisconsin's St. Croix County grew 34 percent, from 63,000 to 84,000.
The nearby Interstate 94 corridor simply can't handle all of the demand. Nor can the aging Lift Bridge. Plans call for that bridge, built in 1931 and listed on the National Register of Historic Places, to remain open as a pedestrian pathway as long as it's safe.
For nearly three decades, the affected Minnesota and Wisconsin communities, environmentalists, politicians, historical preservationists, and numerous local, state and federal agencies have painstakingly studied and debated the viable bridge options.
Twenty-eight key stakeholders participated in a three-year mediated process in which all but two -- both environmental groups -- agreed that the blufftop project was the best choice.
Participants strived to minimize any negative impact to area park lands, cultural resources, wetlands, and threatened or endangered species.
In the past, the Star Tribune Editorial Board has opposed a blufftop bridge, mainly because of concerns about sprawl and the scenic and historic nature of the St. Croix River Valley, which is protected under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
Our view has changed as the growth of the valley has overwhelmed the existing transportation system. We believe the environmental concerns have been adequately vetted.
If this proposal fails, the area may not see a new bridge plan for another decade or two. The aging Lift Bridge is ill-suited for that timeline, and the costs involved in starting anew would be a waste of taxpayer dollars.
The St. Croix Valley is a national treasure, and environmentalists' passion for preserving its integrity is laudable. But the unreasonableness and litigiousness of a vocal minority, coupled with a campaign of misinformation, shouldn't be allowed to sandbag this project.
For more information on the bridge proposal, go to www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/stcroix.
