Posted on 11/16/2005 3:56:13 PM PST by redpoll
I've had it with the phrase "Bridges to Nowhere." Someone has to speak up for Alaskans.
I've lived in Ketchikan and the Mat-Su valley, two of the places next to "nowhere." Ketchikan is a thin strip of roadway on a mountain cliff next to the ocean. The bridge would connect Ketchikan to the island next door, which has many square miles of flat land that could be developed for the benefit of the community. The Knik Arm bridge connects Anchorage, Alaska's largest city, with the Mat-Su valley, Alaska's fastest growing community. Calling the Knik Arm bridge a bridge to "nowhere" is either stupidity or willful disregard of the facts.
Do these places deserve more roads? Look at a map of Alaska. Look at the towns. Now look at the roads connecting them. Most of the state has no roads at all. The village where I'm typing this is 280 miles from the nearest road. As a result, a trip to Wal-Mart costs me $500 on a small plane to Fairbanks. A gallon of milk costs $12 at the local grocery store. Gas is running at $4.20 a gallon. A road between my village and Fairbanks would radically reduce the cost of living, as well as help connect us to the rest of the economy of North America. Of course, building the road would mean a road to "nowhere."
The critics of the bridges have their arguments backwards. Gravina Island, located next to Ketchikan, has 50 residents because the only way to get there right now is by boat. Since there is no infrastructure, there are no residents. You need to build the infrastructure first to get the residents. The Knik Arm bridge will connect a relatively unpopulated section of the Mat-Su valley to Anchorage; it will also turn a 60-minute commute from Wasilla into a 20-minute drive. You don't often find commuters "nowhere."
There is a long tradition in this country of building infrastructure with government funding to boost local economies. The Cumberland Road went "nowhere" at first. The railroads in the 19th century went through vast expanses of "nowhere." The Golden Gate bridge connected San Francisco to "nowhere," the undeveloped sections of Marin County. The Mackinac Straits bridge went from lower Michigan to "nowhere." A lot of the interstate highway system goes "nowhere."
Sure, there are boondoggles, from the C and O Canal to the poorly built dikes around New Orleans. On the other hand, there's Hoover Dam and the George Washington Bridge. A good argument could be made that one of the things that government does well is build infrastructure; certainly the founders had that in mind when one of the specific duties of government was the construction of "post roads" and other infrastructure to help commerce.
It would help Ketchikan to have a bridge connecting that city to Gravina Island. It would help Southeast to have a road connecting most of the towns there, too. It would help Alaska to have roads connecting Nome and Bethel and Barrow to Fairbanks, too. (The Knik Arm bridge would cut one hour off the trip between Anchorage and Fairbanks.)
Of course, if nothing is done, no roads are build, no bridges allowed to connect our communities with the rest of the state, most of the state will remain "nowhere." Villages will languish in poverty. Economies will have nowhere to grow. Notice that the first thing that they had to do when oil was developed at Prudhoe Bay was build a road. The road went "nowhere" until the trucks rolled up the road, built the pipeline, and put in the oil derricks.
These are not "bridges to nowhere." They're a needed part of the development of the state. We could argue about cost and design, certainly, but the need for more roads, bridges, and infrastructure here is obvious.
Also, why don't you just spend your state's one year payoff of oil royalties given to every citizen? It's the cost of the bridge.
You do know that the Mackinac Bridge was financed entirely in the private bond market and that it operates at a profit, don't you?
Because we need it to pay for our $4.00 per gal fuel costs. What is your auto fuel costing these days?
"Let the Alaskans develop their land and resources (and keep the revenue) and there would no need for any federal spending here. "
Then fight for that, instead of defending the indefensible.
It was $3.25 until a few weeks ago.
Start voting for Dems...you whine just like one.
You're just an easy target. Have no doubt that the people who are criticizing you on this thread are represented by people who are bringing home pork to their districts as well.
Isn't there a cheaper way to do it than to build a $250 million bridge?
I didn't realize you were forced to live in alaska.
Apparently they are the only state that doesn't allow its citizens to leave and go to a place with cheaper gas and more roads. Instead they are forced to complain that they're not getting enough pork spending.
"cheaper" doesn't buy enough votes!
Acquiring Alaska was a strategic move for an earlier time when foot soldiers were a greater threat; later, the natural resources proved to be of considerable value so development followed along the cost/benefit trail.
Now, we're stuck with a vocal set of freeloaders represented by some relocated professional politicians dreaming of sunshine while apparently addicted to moonshine; the place ain't livable, give it up, already. :)
We have been since before statehood. Kind of tough when you are outnumbered 250 million to 650 thousand. Just a few years ago we elected Wally Hickle Governor under the banner of the Alaska Independence Party who's aim was to sever all ties to the USA.
Not one word of this screed is at all relevant to the question of why this should be paid for by the federal government, rather than the Alaska state government or the local government or even (Ghu forbid) a private developer hoping to get in on the ground floor of that "many square miles of flat land that could be developed".
"Kind of tough when you are outnumbered 250 million to 650 thousand."
You just need to give mosquitos the right to vote...
We have the best scenery, best Hunting, best fishing, best skiing, and least intrusive government of all the states. We would have the best economy too, if the rest of the country would let us develop our resources. But as long as Alaska remains a nature preserve and playground for the benefit for the rest of the states (less than one percent of the land here is in private hands) Let them pay for the upkeep and development.
Far too many people here have chosen to openly display their ignorance about Alaska.
See my post #37. We don't want your money. We would LOVE to pay our way. Let us develop our natural resources OR ELSE you can keep paying for this big National Park. I wish few people who call me a "rabid" conservative could see your post. Too funny!
For sure.
"....give back a large portion (or whatever you can to start) to alaska, and let it develop it as it chooses. That's what should happen..."
In a perfect world, you bet. In fact, part of the deal at statehood was that our state was going to have control over our natural resources - including ANWR oil. If that had happened, this wouldn't have been an issue, since the bridge would have been built long ago, along with the needed roads throughout the state.
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.