Posted on 08/20/2005 4:25:48 PM PDT by neverdem
YOU have probably already heard about the pile of cash going to Alaska from the federal transportation bill. There's about a quarter of a billion dollars for a bridge to connect the airport on Gravina Island to Ketchikan (population 14,000). The bridge will rival the Golden Gate and Brooklyn Bridges in length and height.
Then there's $230 million or so for "Don Young's Way," a bridge between Anchorage and a swampy, undeveloped port, which is named for the man who got us the money, Alaska's lone congressman.
But it's the $15 million designated for a road between Juneau and Skagway that is dearest to me. Haines, the small town I live in, is close to Skagway - separated from it only by the waters of the upper Lynn Canal, which is not a canal at all, but the longest fjord in North America. The transportation money will go toward the first road ever to be built along the canal. Actually, the project will cost about $300 million to complete, but Gov. Frank Murkowski assures Alaskans that he'll get whatever he needs from the federal government.
The communities directly affected - Haines (population 2,400), Skagway (population 870) and Juneau (population 31,000) - have voiced opposition to the road for a host of good reasons: it is a waste of money; with at least two dozen avalanche chutes, it will be too dangerous to drive in winter, which is most of the year; we already have a fine ferry system that gets us just about everywhere we need to go in all kinds of weather; some places are too nice to be paved over.
Oh, and did I mention that the road won't fulfill its ostensible mission? The whole purpose of the new road was to connect Juneau to the Klondike Highway...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I think I'll plan a trip to appreciate my portion of the tax bill.
What a disgrace.
The reactionaries in Alaska have the same antiroad arguments as the antigrowth reactionaries in East Tennessee.
Ingrates. Cede Alaska back to Russia.
Are there any jobs there, cheap housing? Sounds like a good place to be.
They could extend the railroad to Canada. That might make a difference to the Alaska economy. But, it almost seems that there are those with the pull in DC who do not want to see Alaska's economy strengthened.
That is something new immigrants are expected to provide for themselves. Buy a piece of land at $4000 an acre and get to work. Jobs? As long as BigGov keeps the funds rolling in.
Hey, Back off.
Just because the NYSlimes manages to find a few alaskans opposed to these projects does not mean they are un-needed.
Imagine if your Airport was a ferry ride away (with a small ferry) and flights were often missed because of the ferry was down. When a plane went off the end of the runway they couldn't even get emergency personell across the channel to evacuate the injured.
The road to the "swamp" is for a major port expansion, and is needed and favored by all alaskans and the military. The only ones opposed are the carbet bagger greenies from down south.
Those 14,000 people are taxpayers, they should get their bridge.
Alaska doesn't have two Senators in addition to its one Representative? Or does the author not understand how Congress is organized?
I can assure anyone that is worried, that most of us Alaskans actually want to have more roads. We are of course the silent, ignored by the biased media, majority.
For what it is worth, this is also listed by TaxPayer.Net as one of the 27 most wasteful road projects in the United States:
I have an idea: The people who live in Alaska and are going to be using the bridge can pay for it.
Likewise, those living in New York can pay for their bridges; those living in Kansas can pay for theirs; and so on. Why must the federal government pay for everything?
Well, I live in Juneau, and I would like a road out of town... the town is split 50/50 . . .
In the previous thread with this article months ago, someone ran that numbers on how much a population of 14,000 pays in taxes and found that the payments will cover the cost of the bridge.
Then what is stopping them?
A bunch of New England socialists who think that they should be the only ones to receive tax money for projects.
I am pointing out the money these people pay in federal taxes offsets the cost of the bridge, therefore the bridge should be funded and built.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.