National Pork Service (Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska "Bridge to Nowhere")

Washington Post ^ | Richard Cohen | Richard Cohen

[thackney]

Anyone other than 13,300 local residents would have to use a boat or and airplane to get here in order to use the bridge.

yep, about 3/4 of a million visitors a year. And most of them come by cruise ship.

[thackney]

Let the Alaskans develop their land and resources

The best point yet. Can you imagine any other state in the union trying to operate with less than 1% of the land privately owned?

[Chena]

Welcome to FR. :)

[Chena]

Maybe THIS would work....we'll give Ketchikan their ferry, IF Ketchikan, Stevens, et al....make sure we DRILL IN ANWR....!!!

ROFL! Ah, the oil....and tourists from Outside...they love us and apparently some hate us too. Ain't it a hoot?!

[Chena]

It seem everyone here is falling for this line. It is so easy to lie with statistics. Any statistic about Alaska can be made to look very bad if you divide by population. Try looking at spending per mile of coastline and reality is put into perspective (Alaska has 6 times the coastline of the lower 48 states) we come out dead last when it come to federal spending on ports, bridges, and harbors. This trick has been used by the liberals for years to make a good conservatives like Senator Stevens look like a pork monger. Another frequently used trick is to compare federal spending with " income tax revenue", where it is easy to show that the feds spend a lot more than comes in from "taxes" due to the tiny population here. It is easy to conveniently ignore the millions upon millions of dollars in natural resource revenues (technically not taxes in libspeak) from the oil, mining and fishing industries. (Federal leasing fees from ANWR alone are projected to be 2.6 BILLION dollars from the 90% federal share). Most Alaskans are used to this. We have our own "Hate Stevens" crowd of liberals here, kind of a subset of the hate Bush/Hate America type that would love nothing better than to see Stevens replaced with a liberal like Tony Knowles. Even if you don,t believe me take heart, the envirowackos and their New York lawyers will be on this project like flies on feces and the likely-hood is that it will be shut down for "environmental" reasons (we might have the audacity to develop some of the "pristine wilderness" on Gravinia island). and we will spend millions (of state money) to fight it. and as in most cases where we try to develop things here, loose. Let the Alaskans develop their land and resources (and keep the revenue) and there would no need for any federal spending here.

Just popping in so I can "repeat" what you said. Well done, Species8472!

[Chena]

Back when Alaska chose to become a state, the Federal Government promised to turn over all the land not in use for such things as military bases and National Parks to the new State. They lied. Even the Native Corporations had to sue to get the land they now own--- with Federal strings attached. Even much of the land that was under the jurisdiction of the BLM has now been made into new National Parks, thus eliminating any chance the State might have to claim it. This has cost the State Billions of dollars and countless jobs. Guess what? Now that self-same Federal Government (that's you, me and a bunch of others who pay taxes) has its panties in a wad cause some of those upstart Alaskans want part of their money back. Had the land been transferred to State control as was promised, the City of Ketchikan could build a bridge to Gravina Island and then on to Wrangell and Juneau plus drill a tunnel through the nountains to the Alcan Highway! Until you know what you're talking (typing) about it might be wise to do a bit of research.

Well done, sir...well, done!

[Republican Wildcat]

On this Stevens had a point...not for the pork itself, but for the fact the bill targeted Alaska only. That is most certainly not fair.

[Chena]

Looks like we don't agree on this subject, FMC. Just wanted you to know that I still think you and your beloved are wonderful people. Keep on "pinging" me! :)

[Republican Wildcat]

So what you are saying is that this bridge has to be Federal because the area is under Federal control?

[Republican Wildcat]

Stevens has not been one to back down from the fight on ANWR.

[Wycowboy]

Why is it alright to repeatedly fund the rebuilding of a half-assed city, located 10 to 20 feet below sea level, but half the people in the lower 48 get themselves so worked up over a half assed bridge?

It is correct that Ketchikan needs access to Gravina Island, and it is correct that Anchorage needs easier access across Knik Arm.

If the Feds hadn't usurped control over most of Alaska's lands, maybe public money would not be needed for the bridges. Maybe New Orleans should be weaned off the Federal teat. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[skeptoid]

....."Ketchikan could build a bridge to Gravina Island and then on to Wrangell"

Hey, oldfart, (your choice of name) look at a chart. You are the ignorant one here. A road link from Gravina Island to Wrangell (on another island, BTW), would require about a SIX MILE BRIDGE CROSSING of impossibly deep salt water subject to several storms each year. It is beyond the capability of humankind. It exists only in your imagination.

On the other hand, a road link from Ketchikan to the north end of Revilla Island and roughly along the hydroelectric intertie route involves two feasable crossings and comes within reasonable distance of existing Alaskan logging roads and Canadian mining roads and involves the least pioneering.

Check it out and let me know, "oldfart".

[skeptoid]

I take yer "yep" as an agreement.

The thing is, not ONEof those cruise ship tourists goes to Gravina Island, unless they are giving up on the cruise and flying out of there.

And perhaps you also know that Ketchikan will be having about 100 to 150 thousand fewer cruise ship visitors next year. And that's down from 800 thousand plus.

The proposed bridge is extremely ugly and discordant in its setting. It is not at all an artful structure in the vein of the Golden Gate or the Brooklyn bridges. It is a sterile, intrusive monstrosity of reinforced concrete pillars and spans. Depressingly drab and outlandishly oversized in a setting of unique beauty and historic quaintness. And it is an unnecessary hazard to navigation of the cruise ships, not to mention the huge floatplane sightseeing traffic. If it is built, it will stand for eons as an embarassment to the local residents.

See Gravina Access for graphics and other details.

[Loud Mime]

Next, build a bridge between the two peaks of Mt. Kilimanjaro

[oldfart]

"So what you are saying is that this bridge has to be Federal because the area is under Federal control?"

No, the land is only under nominal federal control. That is, no more so than any other city in any other state. What I am saying is that the Federal Government (you, me and all the rest of us who've profited from all that Alaskan oil) should now pay Alaska back for what we've stolen from them.

[oldfart]

I suppose there are cheaper and better routes for a road. But don't be so certain a road couldn't be built as I jestingly suggested. Consider the Hood Canal floating bridge in Puget Sound. It crosses a channel so deep that submarines going to and from the Bangor submarine base go under it.
As an old "Oldfart," I've learned that when mankind is faced with an impossible task, he generally makes it possible, then probable and then he just does it. Look at the "Chunnel" which now connects France and Great Britain. It too was once considered 'impossible.'

[skeptoid]

I sincerely doubt floating bridge could be built from Gravina Island to Camaano Point because it would surely blow out. But if it could be done, why?

If you start on the Ketchikan side (where all the 13,300 people are) then drive southeast to the proposed high bridge crossing at Saxman, then up Pennock Island to the northwest and across the West Channel low bridge crossing to Gravina Island, you are not any closer to Wrangell than when you started. And this scenario has been officially estimated to cost 315 million dollars.

This can be visuallized at Google Maps. Scroll and zoom your way to the southern end of the Southeast Alaska Panhandle.

[skeptoid]

Enter ketchikan in the Google Maps search box

[oldfart]

I have plenty of maps already. Besides, as I said (or implied) I was being somewhat facetious when I made the original post. My point being that the State of Alaska could easily afford almost any bridge, tunnel or roadway if they hadn't been ripped off by the feds.