If you care about Anchorage and its future, you should be against the Knik Arm bridge. The bridge is a vastly expensive project, proposed 50 years before its time. It will drain our community's economy at the cost of serving the "lucky" and somewhat mysterious landowners on the other side.
All major urban bridges in the U.S. have been preceded by a busy ferry system. The day the Golden Gate Bridge opened, 200,000 people crossed by foot or on roller skates. Residents in six surrounding counties voted in favor 3 to 1 to approve a $35 million bond to finance it. In Seattle, networks of cross-lake ferries on Union Lake and Lake Washington were the standard transportation mode before large populations on both sides led to the construction of the current network of bridges.
The Knik Arm bridge will not significantly reduce travel for many residents. A traffic and toll revenue study, commissioned by the sponsor of the Knik Arm bridge and Toll Authority, shows that commuters living anywhere between Wasilla and Anchorage would not save money by taking the bridge. In fact, taking the bridge instead of the Glenn Highway would add over 10 minutes to the commute and bridge drivers would have to pay a toll.
Anchorage will lose people, jobs, money and some of its tax base to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. The Knik Arm Crossing Environmental Impact Statement says that the bridge will not increase overall regional employment or population growth. Instead, the bridge will just redistribute development from Anchorage to the Mat-Su. Anchorage will lose at least 4,900 households or 12,900 people, and 5,800 jobs.
The bridge means costly urban sprawl. It offers low-cost land within three miles of downtown Anchorage. People who live just across the bridge will pay their taxes to the Mat-Su Borough and come into Anchorage to work and use the services and facilities paid for by Anchorage residents.
Anchorage's industrial base, warehousing and business investments will shift to the cheaper, low-taxed land just across the bridge in the Mat-Su. Over time, cheap residential lots with limited service will erode the value of Anchorage's residential properties.
The money is not there to build the bridge. Funds are dwindling in the Federal Highway Trust Fund, which pays for a majority of Alaska's roads and bridges. As a result, Alaska's federal transportation dollars are decreasing. New federal earmarks for the proposed bridge are unlikely. Private capital is not likely to invest in high-risk projects without a commitment of public dollars to guarantee the project.
According to the independent engineers hired by the Alaska Department of Transportation, "The Project will not be economically feasible if ... all (financial) risks are passed on to the contractor." Given this reality, briege authority is now angling for a state revenue bond to guarantee or cover bridge costs not met by tolls. If that happens, the state will sink hundreds of millions of dollars of the state's bonding capacity into this questionable project.
The most recent estimate of the construction cost for the entire project is over $1.5 billion. To date, the bridge authority has burned through more than $44 million in federal and state transportation funds and not a shovel has been turned or is ready to turn.
We need to end the waste of public dollars now. The bridge authority continues to spend over $13,000 each day on high-paid staff and consultants while no construction project is in sight.
At this point, the most effective way to prevent a further waste of public money is to remove the bridge from the Anchorage Long Range Transportation Plan. The Assembly will be considering that question Wednesday at our special meeting.
Shelia Selkregg represents East Anchorage on the Anchorage Assembly.
By SHEILA SELKREGG