The Knik Arm bridge proposal envisions a span crossing Knik Arm from Point MacKenzie (in the Mat-Su Borough) to Anchorage. Approximately 2 miles across, the bridge would be roughly two thirds earthen berm and one third elevated roadway on pilings.
Originally conceived to support economic growth and commuter convenience, detailed analysis by project boosters shows that the bridge would provide neither benefit- and in fact poses significant costs for Anchorage and the Mat-Su Borough.
Additionally, federal funding for the project has been severely limited, and bridge proponents have yet to detail how they will raise the $600 million to $1 billion the project is expected to cost.
Knik Arm crossing project will benefit from more oversight
The Anchorage Daily News ran an editorial (http://www.adn.com/opinion/view/story/316738.html) supporting legislation that would require the state legislature and the public to have a say in any Knik Arm "bridge to nowhere" deal before it could be built. The legislation, SB 268 and HB 365 would require a 60 day review period and legislative approval. The Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority (KABATA) is the state agency created in 2002 during the Murkowski administration to build a bridge to Knik Arm, which has been acting with almost no input from the public or from the Palin administration. KABATA is believed by many to have grossly underestimated the $600 million price tag for the project and the environmental impacts of the structure. You can help by writing a letter to the editor in support of this legislation to create public accountability for KABATA. Email your letter to letters@adn.com. For more information contact saraellen@akcenter.org or visit http://www.aktransportation.org/.
Comments submitted on the Knik Arm Crossing EIS
Comments have been submitted on the Knik Arm Crossing Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on behalf of ACE and several other organizations. The final EIS falls short of the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The EIS not only falls short of NEPA, but the bridge would not meet the needs of the Upper Cook Inlet region, and we thus urge the the Federal Highway Administration to select the No Action Alternative.
Knik Arm "Bridge to Nowhere" agency could finally be accountable to Alaskans
Alaska State Senate Majority Leader Johnny Ellis and Representative Les Gara proposed a joint bill yesterday to require legislative approval and public review of any Knik Arm Bridge project before it could be built. Since the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority agency (KABATA) was created in 2002 during the Murkowski administration, this bureaucracy has burned through almost $40 million to study and rationalize for a bridge, despite national ridicule, dwindling federal support for transportation, and a tenuous world financial climate.
This legislation would require KABATA to operate with similar transparency and accountability that Governor Palin champions in the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) process, in terms of financing, how Alaskans will be affected, and the tolls to use the bridge. So far, KABATA has been vague with the public about the exact terms of the deal it can strike with a private investor who may not have our best interests at heart. In fact, when Anchorage Daily News reporter Kyle Hopkins asked KABATA to see the draft request for proposal (RFP), he was turned down. This fact, taken with the disclosure by KABATA at a board meeting last fall that the private investors had made dozens of requests for changes to the RFP, leads us to wonder whether the bridge will help Alaskans as the agency claims, or help overseas investors at the expense of Alaskans.
Our elected officials, and we as individuals, must have a say in this project. Unlike an unnecessary plane, we can't put the bridge on eBay if it turns out to be a bad idea.
Cost – A previous engineering estimate and a June 2006 estimate done by the Federal Highway Administration show the bridge costing over $1 billion with two phases of construction: Phase I will send trucks and other traffic into downtown; Phase II will connect the bridge to Ingra-Gambell by 2023. Contrary to common perception, very little of the bridge project’s cost is covered by federal dollars (even the original earmark – since removed – did not cover a large portion of the project’s costs). Cost overruns and/or inadequate toll revenue could result in higher property taxes and a local gas tax.
Until the Ingra-Gambell connection is built many years from now, trucks will pass through downtown making it less welcoming for tourists and consumers. Trucks also will accelerate road damage downtown, making repairs more frequent.
Anchorage will lose population and tax revenue as a result of the bridge; regional employment and population will be unchanged.
The historic and walkable Government Hill neighborhood will be divided by a highway, and approximately 14 Government Hill houses will be removed through eminent domain.
The bridge will increase sprawl throughout Los Anchorage.
Few Mat-Su Borough commuters will benefit. Only those living in sparsely-populated areas west of Wasilla or near Point MacKenzie will experience reduced travel time.
Cook Inlet’s beluga whales -- already with a very low population – as well as juvenile salmon, will be adversely impacted by the bridge even if that harm is minimized. These wildlife assets help the Anchorage economy.
The bridge increases our dependency on energy-intensive car travel which increases global warming. Better alternatives for Mat-Su Borough commuters are ferries and commuter rail (with wireless capabilities!), both now under development, as well as vanpools on the Glenn Highway along with improved public transit in Anchorage to facilitate in-town movement.
1) Consider common sense solutions and alternatives.
A variety of alternatives were proposed early on in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process but the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority (KABATA) ignored them and stuck with its very controversial
bridge design. KABATA needs to consider a full range of alternatives, including:
The Congestion Relief Alternative – Includes commuter/cargo rail, ferries, van-pool and car-pool incentives for the Glenn Highway, and improved public transit options within Anchorage (allowing commuters to move around town) – a thoughtful, inexpensive way to improve regional connectivity.
The Anchorage Access Alternative – A bridge access route that keeps Government Hill largely intact.
2) Address the region’s real traffic and infrastructure needs.
KABATA’s own studies show that the proposed bridge won’t save the majority of existing and future commuters time or money. Anyone living east of Houston, including Wasilla, would not benefit from the bridge. 1 The bridge also would add a huge amount of traffic to already-ongested downtown Anchorage, and would reduce state funding for upgrading and maintaining existing roads.
3) Provide realistic cost figures.
Earlier cost estimates were more than $1.1 billion for the project.2 Even as construction costs have increased from 30-60 percent due to hurricane reconstruction, global demands for materials, and higher energy costs (e.g., the cost of asphalt has doubled), KABATA’s bridge cost estimate remains at $600 million. There is less than $94 million committed for the project from the federal government, and KABATA has yet to identify the source of over $500 million necessary to complete the project (likely a mix of state and local funds, private road ownership, and tolls).
4) Protect the Cook Inlet beluga whale.
Cook Inlet beluga whales’ historical abundance was over 1,000 individuals. As of 2005, there were well under 300 Cook Inlet beluga whales and the population continues to decline. The federal government
recently began a year-long process to determine whether the whale should be listed as “threatened” or “endangered” under the Endangered Species Act.3 The Knik Arm Bridge inevitably will harm these whales
to some degree, e.g., pile driving will impact their sensitive hearing and the bridge will increase water velocity making it more challenging for whale passage.
The November, 2005 “Preliminary Traffic and Toll Revenue Study” commissioned by KABATA found that driving the proposed bridge will take people commuting from Wasilla to Anchorage nearly 12 extra minutes and will save those commuting from Houston to Anchorage only 7 minutes (Figures 5 and 4, respectively). See www.knikbridgefacts.org.
Knik Arm Crossing: Engineering Feasibility and Cost Estimate Update, Parsons Brinckerhoff, HDR Alaska for Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, January 31, 2003, p. 1-4.
See 71 Federal Register 44614 (August 7, 2006).
What are the perceived needs for the bridge?
A Knik Arm bridge has been proposed to meet a variety of needs both for Anchorage and the nearby Mat-Su Borough. These perceived needs include:
Accessing cheap land for homes as the region's population grows.
Improving the Anchorage region's economy with increased developable lands.
Facilitating cargo movement between Anchorage and points north.
Reducing commuter travel time between Anchorage and the Mat-Su Borough.
Increasing safety through multiple entrance and exit points to Anchorage.
Can the needs be met in other ways? Yes.
Residential housing can be built in the Anchorage bowl in higher density housing/mixed-use developments, and affordable homes can be built throughout the Mat-Su Borough, not only near Point MacKenzie.
The region's economic growth can and should occur throughout the Mat-Su Valley, not just near Point MacKenzie. Additionally, the Municipality of Anchorage has many areas of unused land, including land north of Anchorage in Eagle River, Chugiak, etc.
Cargo can be moved north from Anchorage via ferry (with upgraded roads near Point MacKenzie), via the Alaska Railroad, and via the existing Glenn and Parks Highways.
Commuter travel time can be reduced in many ways including: decreasing highway accidents, allowing travelers to work while riding on commuter rail and commuter ferries (e.g., by providing wireless service), easing parking restrictions for carpoolers, etc. Business development in the Mat-Su Valley itself will result in fewer commuters to Anchorage.
Upgraded rail service and ferry service can facilitate entering and exiting Anchorage.
Will the bridge reduce commute times or relieve congestion? No.
The vast majority of people commuting to Anchorage from the Mat-Su Valley will continue to drive the Glenn Highway because it will continue to be the faster, toll-free route into Anchorage. Only residents living in rural areas like Big Lake, Houston, and Point MacKenzie will find the bridge route more efficient.
Additionally, the bridge will add to Anchorage downtown congestion.
How do communities know they need a bridge?
Historically, bridges were constructed when ferry service was unable to handle the number of people needing to cross a waterway. Ferry service has not yet begun across Knik Arm, but will begin in 2007.
Who will benefit from the bridge? Who will lose out?
Those who may benefit from the bridge include:
Residential and industrial/commercial developers in the Point MacKenzie area
Landowners in the Point MacKenzie area
New homeowners in Point MacKenzie (but many of these homeowners will pay a daily toll to travel to work, reducing the financial gain from cheaper housing)
Bridge-related construction firms
Those who may lose out from the bridge include:
Downtown Anchorage businesses and cultural institutions
Anchorage bowl residential property and business owners, whose homes and businesses will not increase in value as much as they would without a bridge
Anchorage and Mat-Su Borough property owners whose taxes likely will increase to fund access roads and/or new infrastructure needed because of the bridge
Mat-Su Borough residents who currently face growth problems in their overcrowded schools and roads, their overly-stressed emergency services, etc.
Communities throughout the state that will lose state transportation funds to pay for the Knik Arm bridge instead
Government Hill residents, who will have a highway through their close-knit, historic neighborhood
Alaska Railroad
Who will pay for the bridge?
The bridge is likely to cost anywhere from $600 million (Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority estimate, 2005) to over $1.5 billion (Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities study estimate, 2003).
In the summer of 2005, the U.S. Congress granted a $231 million earmark for the bridge. After overwhelming national criticism over spending massive amounts of federal tax dollars on "bridges to nowhere," Congress removed its mandate to spend the $231 million on the Knik Arm bridge project. The State of Alaska still has the option to use much of this funding on the bridge, however the funding comes at the expense of other improvements to make Alaska's existing road system safer, smoother, and less congested.
Tolls likely will account for an additional $200 million. The remainder will be made up with "creative financing," including using State General Fund dollars (money that could instead be used to pay teachers or reinstitute revenue sharing with communities), increasing the state motor fuel tax and/or instituting a local motor fuel tax, and local property tax increases.
What will the bridge's toll be?
Wilbur Smith Associates, an infrastructure consulting firm, determined that the optimal cash toll when the bridge opens in 2010 should be $3 each way (2005). Higher tolls significantly reduce the number of travelers while lower tolls reduce revenue.
What are the alternatives to the proposed bridge?
During the public comment period for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) "scoping" period, the public proposed two primary alternatives to the bridge:
First: Four road route alternatives through Elmendorf Air Force Base connecting to downtown Anchorage via Post Road/Reeve Boulevard, Boniface Parkway, Muldoon Road, or Hiland Road, respectively (see map).
Second: A four-part, non-bridge alternative consisting of:
Vehicle/cargo ferry service between Point MacKenzie and Anchorage
Commuter/cargo rail between the Mat-Su Borough and Anchorage
Carpool and vanpool incentives for travel along the Glenn Highway between the Borough and Anchorage
Expanded bus service and potential streetcar transit in Anchorage (to ensure easy movement within Anchorage)
Although it is supposed to analyze all reasonable alternatives in the NEPA Environmental Impact Statement, in its Scoping Summary Report issued in November 2005, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) rejected all the road route alternatives through Elmendorf as "not reasonable" because they are slightly more inconvenient for most travelers to Anchorage and cost more than the more-direct road route through Government Hill. This decision ignores the primary benefit of the road route alternatives through Elmendorf - preserving the neighborhood integrity of Government Hill.
Similarly, the FHWA also considered the four-part, non-bridge alternative "not reasonable" even though it was designed to meet the same need criteria as the bridge, and would do so at a small fraction of the cost of the bridge and its access roads.
