adn.com | Alaska Politics Blog : Knik Arm bridge: Keep funding?

Alaska Politics Blog

This is the place to talk about Alaska politics -- state, local, national. Public life in the Last Frontier has probably never been more interesting than right now -- the governor as candidate for vice president, the broad and still-evolving corruption investigation, a big election, powerful members of Congress under scrutiny, and the usual hardball Alaska politics. Come here for news, tidbits and information, and join the discussion. Keep your comments civil and on point. Avoid personal attacks. Do not use profanity. Posts that violate the Terms of Use will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned.

Contributors

Erika Bolstad

Erika Bolstad covers Alaska issues, including the congressional delegation, from Washington, D.C., for McClatchy Newspapers. Before joining the bureau in 2007, she spent seven years as a reporter at the Miami Herald, where she covered politics, government and the state legislature. E-mail Erika at ebolstad@adn.com.

Sean Cockerham

Sean Cockerham writes about Alaska state politics. He spent three years based in Juneau for the ADN before joining the Tacoma News-Tribune to write about Washington state politics. He went to Iraq twice for the News Tribune, and previously wrote about Alaska government and politics for the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. E-mail Sean at scockerham@adn.com

Kyle Hopkins

Kyle Hopkins covers politics and other stories for the ADN. He covered the 2006 campaign for governor, has blogged extensively about Alaska politics, covered Anchorage city government and was a reporter based in the Mat-Su. He grew up in Southeast Alaska and previously was a reporter at the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner and Anchorage Press. E-mail Kyle at khopkins@adn.com

Features

2008 Election

At one point the races with Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young promised to be the highest-profile campaigns in Alaska history.

SECTION

Palin coverage

The nation was captivated by Sarah Palin's run to the White House, and now Alaska awaits the return of their governor.

Photo galleries

Reader-submitted Palin photos

SECTION

Alaska political corruption

The FBI raided state legislatures offices in Aug. 2006, and the fallout since has been epic in Alaska's political world.

Knik Arm bridge: Keep funding?

Posted by Alaska_Politics

Posted: April 22, 2008 - 1:52 pm

From Kyle Hopkins in Anchorage --

Quick, how would you answer this multiple-choice question:

To date, the state has spent $40 million and plans to spend over $100 million more in federal and state transportation funds on the proposed Knik Arm Bridge, with private investors presumably covering the rest of the cost and receiving all toll revenue. Given that the Alaska Department of Transportation Commissioner has stated that federal road project funding is likely to be reduced by 25% beginning in 2009, would you prefer:

A. That the state continues to spend state transportation money on this project;
or
B. That the state spends money on local transportation repairs, maintenance and upgrades

Poll results released today by a trio of groups critical of the Knik Arm bridge say more than 70 percent of people surveyed chose 'B' -- that the money should go to local roads.

"The reality is, they've spent $40 million. The question is, do you continue to throw new money after the old money," asked Lois Epstein, director of the Alaska Transportation Priorities Project.

The questions were part of a March 10-12 Hays Research Group survey with a sample size of 401 people and a margin of error of about 4.9 percent.

Epstein said she didn't know what other questions Hays Research asked for other clients as part of the same poll.

Former Gov. Frank Murkowski and the Legislature created the toll authority in 2003 to plan for construction of the bridge and figure out how to pay for it.

KABATA spokeswoman Mary Ann Pease said the toll authority has its own public opinion numbers from an April and June survey last year, that say 70 percent of participants favored the project.

As if the opposing numbers didn't tip you off, the two surveys are pretty different.

The Hays poll was conducted statewide by telephone, with two questions about the bridge. The KABATA survey was regional, focusing on people in the Mat-Su and Anchorage, and who answered questions online or who were "intercepted at activity sites" like the mall or airport.

The Hays poll question points out the Feds won't be giving Alaska as much highway money in the future before asking what people think, while one of the KABATA survey questions tells participants "The Knik Arm area travel improvements may provide faster or more convenient travel into Anchorage from other areas of Knik Arm."

login or register to post comments

11 April 25, 2008 - 10:25am | leowassilie

What KABATA has yet to release

is an updated cost estimate.

No doubt, the one they are using has estimated costs of material from 3 years ago.

Not one single private investor would invest in this shenanigan, unless there was some state/federal guarantees.

Meanwhile, George Weurch and cronies are being paid exhorbent salaries while the state looks to cost cutting measures..

MESSAGE TO GOVERNOR PALIN: This is a no brainer AXE.

10 April 24, 2008 - 10:08am | bigdabber

No Funds

Anchor town has seen its maximum growth. The states money would be best used in Mat-Su to build a Super Deep Port and a Larger Airport with roads that connect to other parts of the state.
Mat-Su has the ability to grow with the rest of the state.
Maybe a bridge to Kenai would be the best option. ...Daniel A. Berry

9 April 23, 2008 - 9:12pm | TheSdog

There are much

better infrastructure projects to spend this money on.

This KABATA charade has gone on long enough. the whole idea it could be the next Golden Gate bridge and open up a new economy is ridiculous.

We would be better served to connect Anchorage and Mat-Su to the rest of the world better. Shoot, a commuter rail between Anchorage and Mat-Su makes more sense than this ridiculous bridge.

April 25, 2008 - 10:18am | leowassilie

Good Lord

What has this world come to?

I wholeheartedly agree.

George Weurch is a CBC candidate. He's smarter though.

April 24, 2008 - 6:31am | erak

Knik is mind boggling - Makes no sense.

If we are going to spend lots of money on a transportation project it should be to connect the Seward and the Glen. If we need to do a bridge, it should be to Kenai.

April 24, 2008 - 12:33pm | TheSdog

Some kind

of plan for a major limited access road through Anchorage is a great idea.

A bridge to the Kenai is a bit of a strech. It saves a lot of time for fishermen but commercial and commuter applications are lacking.

April 24, 2008 - 1:25pm | seewhy

who said it...?

'dealing with a traffic problem by building more roads is like dealing with a weight problem by buying bigger pants.'

April 24, 2008 - 3:06pm | TheSdog

Unless you think Anchorage

residents would use a light rail system I do not see many other options.

April 24, 2008 - 4:01pm | seewhy

not much motivation

as long as people can still drive across town in a reasonable amount of time. quit adding and expanding roads, just let those cars jam/stack up/gridlock. only then will there be motivation to develop decent mass transit.

April 24, 2008 - 4:21pm | TheSdog

People complain

about traffic here that most lower 48 drivers would laugh at as not even being close to heavy.

If we ever do harness Geothermal or hydroelectric or wind or something else it might not be a bad idea to use some of it to run a light rail.

It would seem you could run lines out from a center point somewhere around the uni/med district. You could strech one line out to Eagle River along Muldoon, one line towards downtown, one out Minnesota and one down the New Seward. We could be a little Portland and develop nice communes along the lines...gag.

April 24, 2008 - 12:38pm | rfn

Plot on a map

the location of parcels now belonging to the politically well connected. You'll quickly see the route of such a limited access road for which real estate will need to be purchased at exorbitant prices.

April 24, 2008 - 12:46pm | TheSdog

rfn

There is no doubt that inertia will likely kill the project but it should be considered.

A connection between the Glenn and New Seward along the mountains could be considered. Or even better along the edge of developed territory. That could be done with minimal land grab but the granola chompers would have a cow. Or should I make that save a cow?

April 24, 2008 - 12:52pm | rfn

Minimal land grab?

That's the best way to kill a project!

Take out the profit opportunity for the political crowd and all incentive to do it goes away. Except for the studies. They, of course, go on and on at ever increasing cost.

April 23, 2008 - 11:12pm | Lysander_Spooner

Mostly agree

"Charade" is a great description, especially as it stands presently. The KABATA gang fighting legislative oversight should send red flags shooting up for everyone.

But I do think there is potential in the project. Someday. Just not today. It makes much more sense if a highway corridor were factored into the plan for a rail link from the port to Willow. Cutting 45-60 minutes off the drive from Anchorage to Fairbanks, while alleviating traffic on the Glenn and lower Parks -- especially in the summer -- is something that makes sense.

And it's hard to deny that development would follow a bridge link. I just think some other pieces should be in place before a bridge is built.

Foremost, though, the project should be economically viable. It currently is not, regardless of what the charade-masters say.

April 23, 2008 - 11:36pm | TheSdog

Spooner

Cuuting 45 minutes off of a 4-5 hour drive is hardly a major benefit. If cargo is the concern, you get more by getting the rail down to Port Mackenzie. You could even just build a better road down that way without the bridge. The bridge really does not add much.

Many commuters would not benefit much from the bridge. That is a useless reason for it and likely will remain a useless reason for it.

Real development will only take place if we have a diversified economy to build around. Sooner or later, we will have a bust if we do not get a long term plan for when the resources run out. No bridge will save us from that eventuality.

April 24, 2008 - 1:03am | Lysander_Spooner

Please pay attention

I believe I mostly agreed with you. Your response indicates the opposite. Perhaps you are too accustomed to disagreement.

The words "major benefit" don't appear in my post. Or in my opinion. What I said was shorter drive times between Anchorage and Fairbanks AND traffic mitigation in Mat-Su -- especially during tourist season -- "make sense". Apparently not in your world.

I agree that a diversified economy is essential. But it is a bit of a chicken-egg debate, no? I think it's possible the kind of development spurred by a bridge could be part of that diversity.

But for now, it's clear the project, in its current form, is ill-conceived and unworkable. And it is useless as a boon to commuters. Nobody who commutes buys that little slice of KABATA propaganda.

April 24, 2008 - 9:03am | TheSdog

Spooner

Your reaction is such that you are taking offense wen none was intended. It seems to be you who is sensitive to any mild disagreement.

There is no attack on you in my post and yet you feel it necessary to start your post with a ridiculous ad hominen hack.

The traffic and time cut argument do not make sense to me in the grand scheme and that was my only point. You and cartman need to take a "chill pill" instead of always being in rabid mode.

How does a bridge diversify the economy? It just does not do it. We need things like cheap power, a good tax structure, better and cheaper transportation connections to the rest of the world, etc. If we had all of that we might be able to refine our resources instead of mostly sending them somewhere else for value-added industry.

One thing we could do which I have advocted before is move the capital into the area and make UAA the main focus of the University system. If we could get the population of Mat-Su-Anchorage up to 500-600K we could seriously look at a law school, a med school and other things that might attract people up here. A larger metropolitan area despite protestations by many Alaskans would also kick in far more economies of scale and be more attractive to the kind of yuppie larvae you need to develop a diversified economy. That is the 2 second version but just a thought.

7 April 23, 2008 - 12:32pm | PlayAlong

A new design thought?

My ideas are this. IF we do something like this it needs to be coordinated all around. You don't solve one problem by creating more. Dumping ALL the traffic in Downtown ANC is bad design.

How about a long term plan that does this;

1. Installs a bridge from Pt. Mckenzie to the westerly tide flat area of ANC.
2. There it ties to a elevated highway running along the west shoreline of ANC.
3. It has several exit points to ANC along the way. Mostly to the downtown, airport and Minnesota Drive.
4. It has a exit route to Fire Island bridge.
5. Continues along Turnagain Arm to around Potter Flats and then ties to the Glen Highway and another bridge down to the Kenai.

Now this is a plan that doesn't use up valuable land in ANC, dump all the traffic downtown and provide efficient routes to the Kenai and to the north.

Think how we need alternate routes north and south and how this would aid our economy.

Whatcha think?

WRH

6 April 23, 2008 - 12:04am | Diogenes_lamp

boondoggle...

Kabata did there own survey...lololololol

5 April 22, 2008 - 10:57pm | jerrydfuller

Earmarks

Murkowski, Young and Stevens have an earmark for a fence to be built between the port of Anchorage and Elmendorf....Homeland Security demands this is their explanation. Anchorage or the state should not have to pay for this. Bill it to Homeland Security.
There are also earmarks to keep funding the Knik Arm Authority....Keep studying at millions and millions of dollars.

4 April 22, 2008 - 10:24pm | twodux

As the old saying goes, why throw good money after bad.

3 April 22, 2008 - 9:42pm | akgen

Is it a bridge or is it a ferry?

Who really knows?
I bet ya those who receive some earmark money would know ...

A bridge is a far cry from a ferry.
Suppose a 20 million dollar earmark can decipher the two. Eh?

Maybe it will be like the Airport Railroad Terminal, we won't know any details till opening day and us regular Alaskans get turned away...

{click here} to read about it in the Seattletimes.

{click here} for the ADN story...

{click here} for the mention in Rollcall

One last comment: this was a 20 million earmark for a ferry that the Navy decided wasn't up to snuff... to many design flaws.

2 April 22, 2008 - 5:47pm | black33

They should take the money

and spend it on the Juneau access road. Lord knows, DOT'll need it for that project. The state raised its estimates for the Juneau project by $100 million to $350 million- only need to add another $650 million to get to the total of $1 billion that will be needed for the project.

1 April 22, 2008 - 5:03pm | takanee

Knik bridge a waste of money

Alaska needs to concentrate on maintaining the roads that are currently open. The frost heaves have caused numerous problems this year all over the state. Our roads need the money, not imaginary bridges.

Why is Alaska so excited about providing taxpayer money to a private outfit that will own the road? This sounds like another American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) boondoggle that requires huge incentives be given to private outfits to come in and own/manage what should be governmental operations.

April 22, 2008 - 7:19pm | rfn

Not advocating - just asking....

What if Alaska did, concerning the bridge, what The United Kingdom did with airports? Sell 'em to private entities.

If there is commercial interest in building a bridge, arrange a contract where private money builds the bridge and tolls pay for it. Then tax the income from the tolls like we tax petroleum pumped out of the ground.

That'd pretty well shake out whether the project is or is not viable. In an improved economy (if any of us live long enough to see THAT), there might be enough interest in breaking the lock on available building space in The Muni to not just justify a bridge but to make it profitable.

April 22, 2008 - 11:09pm | seewhy

suppose

i wanted to move to the mat-su to avoid paying anchorage property tax. the bridge doesn't cut any mileage off the commute. check my math, please...
150 workdays, 120 mile RT... 22 mpg... $5.00 a gallon by the time the bridge is finished. $4,100 just in gas. say $5,000 by the time you maintain the car and buy tires for it. improved economy or not, the idea of suburbs and exurbs as a cheap alternative is almost over.

April 23, 2008 - 10:15am | Aklabwalker

Don't forget the rosey

sum of 5.00-16.00 X 2 daily that it will take to cross the bridge. I smell another coal fired plant fiasco...or was that the fish processing plant...or was that the grain loading terminal? So many worth while projects and a seamingly unlimited supply of money.

April 23, 2008 - 10:43am | rfn

Math vs. geogaphy:

Please start off with the thought that I really don't want to see the bridge built because, if it is, there'll be a push to annex The Mat-Su Borough to Seattle-North and impose taxes like happened to Eagle River.

That said, look at the math. If the hypothetical person lives in Wasilla or Palmer then the bridge does nothing useful. The mileage is the same and new roads would be needed because the gravel near-footpath that exists won't cut it.

But if the land immediately across the Inlet is developed it all changes. The drive is then across the bridge and perhaps 5-miles. No 120-mile round trip; just 10-miles and big savings on fuel. Grind in one-way tolls and it becomes, maybe, break-even. Issue monthly passes and things start to change.

I've jokingly suggested that Wal-Mart fund the bridge, build a Mega-Store on the far side and offer validated bridge toll tickets to customers who spend maybe a hundred-dollar minimum. Think of that as a part of the puzzle but not the whole solution. Fact remains that there are thousands of acres of vacant land just across the inlet and there are very few building sites on the city side.

No question the idea of far-out suburbs is going to change. However it may mark an exodus of some businesses to locate in The Valley where the workers and the customers live. Especially if a new mayor continues the policies that are making doing business in "downtown" more difficult each day.

Coming back to motivation....

Locating a home across the bridge solely because of the difference in property taxes doesn't pencil out though it IS more beneficial than one might think. Here's something closer to the total picture:

Not long ago identical houses in The Muni and in The Mat-Su were being sold for $125,000 MORE for the ones in The Muni. Builder pointed out the difference in land cost and sewer/water hookup fees. Because of the higher "value", the property tax bills differ not only due to the higher Muni tax rate but also multiplied by that higher "value". The lower payment in interest and in tax-escrow fees quickly converts into covering the cost of the short commute. Enough to make it worth while? Certainly worth the cost of calculating it carefully.

But don't worry about a bridge. If anybody gets serious about starting one the guardians of the belugas, slime-lizards or something totally imaginary will be out in droves to prevent it. Or at least tie it up in court for 19 years.

April 23, 2008 - 8:09pm | seewhy

joke

"I've jokingly suggested that Wal-Mart fund the bridge, build a Mega-Store on the far side and offer validated bridge toll tickets to customers who spend maybe a hundred-dollar minimum."
but that's just a ruse! what's really happening is we're paying KABATA to market this boondoggle to us. and then we will pay to build it. and it isn't particularly amusing.

April 23, 2008 - 8:47pm | rfn

So far,

Wal-Mart hasn't offered to build the bridge so it's not much of a ruse.

This is a bridge that should never happen.

"Anchorage" is land-locked; wants to stay land-locked to keep up real estate prices and facilitate political deal-making for fun and profit. The Muni wants that....let The Muni have that.

April 22, 2008 - 11:53pm | twodux

and

If you used the bridge that doesn't cut any miles off your commute, you'd be adding two toll fares per day too. At what $5 each? $10 each? So if Valley commuters decided it wasn't worth using the bridge, how exactly will there be enough people using the bridge and paying the toll to make it cost effective?

Maybe the State could just close the Glenn and force commuters to use the bridge to help pay for it.

Face it, this is just another misuse of taxpayer money for politically connected land speculators. Kind of like Coconut Rd. See a pattern yet?

Rick Bray

Search Jobs | Place an employment ad

Alaska Politics Blog

Contributors

Features

Archive

Knik Arm bridge: Keep funding?