Plan for the Sterling Highway rebuild along the Kenai River needs a closer look

For more than 40 years the issue of the Cooper Landing bypass has raised controversy, but there does seem to be light at the end of the tunnel. Unfortunately, that light may be an oncoming train. The bypass has two primary goals – upgrade the road to modern design standards to allow traffic to move safely and at highway speeds around Cooper Landing, and to move heavy traffic away from the Kenai River.

What then is the oncoming train wreck?

The current preferred alternative, called G-South, fails to move the highway corridor away from the Kenai River, thereby allowing the threat of a major environmental spill. If that wasn't enough, it also fails to mitigate "Crash Corner," the dangerous S-Curve between Gwin's Lodge and the Russian River Campground, the highest accident area; it puts another bridge across the scenic Kenai River in a 5-mile stretch where two already exist; it impacts (paves over) more culturally sensitive lands; and lastly, it is the most expensive alternative at $303 million, $53 million more than the remaining alternative.

The other alternative, called Juneau Creek, bypasses both Cooper Landing and the Kenai River, provides better highway traffic flow and safety, avoids the highest accident prone areas, removes a major environment spill threat to the Kenai, reduces heavy traffic congestion through the Kenai River recreational corridor, impacts fewer culturally sensitive lands, improves recreational access to the Resurrection Pass Trail, and does not build another bridge across the Kenai, all at 20 percent less cost.

[State chooses new Sterling Highway route bypassing Cooper Landing]

So after 40 plus years of studies, why spend more money to provide less highway safety, put the river at continuing risk of large scale environmental damage, increase the likelihood of fatal and serious accidents, fail to adequately address traffic congestion in heavily used recreation areas?

How did the "G- String" route (more expensive, skimpier, less protection) rise to be the preferred alternative? Over a "top shelf" alternative that is cheaper, better meets highway design standards, and offers more protection to people and the environment?

Because the highway powers that be at the state and federal levels don't want to deal with the paperwork associated with 33 acres of wilderness designation (.001 percent) in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. And although both the Alaska National Interest Land Conversation Act and the Russian River Lands Act, both passed by Congress, allows for land exchanges in the wilderness area of the refuge, no one wants to tackle that burden.

What makes it worse, is the decision-makers have willing partners – the refuge and a large private land owner are willing to exchange much more ecologically important brown bear and king salmon habitat along the Killey River for the 33 acres to provide the highway corridor for the Juneau Creek route.

We will forego being smart, and wise, and strategic, just to avoid perceived regulatory morass. After 40 years, it is still kick the can down the road, and let tomorrow's generation deal with poor design, increased human and environment risk, and more debt.

The final decision of record will be made in 2016, with construction set to begin potentially by 2018. To blow the whistle on this lunacy and express your road rage, contact the offices of the governor and Department of Transportation and Public Facilities  commissioner, municipal and state officials, and the Alaska congressional delegation.

The time to weigh in is now. Or we may find ourselves collectively reading tomorrow's headlines: "Catastrophe as double-trailer spills into the Kenai River …." If only someone had warned about this.

Ricky Gease is executive director the Kenai River Sportfishing Association.