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.
And what about all that oil? Apparently it's all on that little island and they can't get there without a Federally funded bridge like the Mackinac which . . . aw . . . nevermind.
Well, since Alaska has the resources it does, I guess we could leave that part off. It would be nice to be able to negotiate for our resources as a sovereign country instead of a beholden state, though.
Cute, flashbunny. Do not think for one minute that because I do not choose to argue facts with someone who is immune to them means that you are right. And perhaps you could learn a thing or two about "bowing out gracefully".
As for pork, I rarely eat it, and certainly do not indulge in it.
OINK OINK
I don't live in ny...and my state does send more out than it gets in.
I don't try to justify pork projects because of that, though - I simply want them ALL ended and the federal gas tax should go with it.
I knew you would have fun together!!! Let the sarcasm roll! Keep on talking, the show is better than the Comedy Channel! ROFL!!!
Ahhh, so you're willing to let your tax dollars pay for something but not get anything in return. Now isn't that a noble idea. LOL Oh yes, let's do away with the federal gas tax. EXCELLENT IDEA! SERIESLY! But since we DO pay and HAVE paid, shall we just let the gubbmint KEEP our money?
I thought you were leaving...
Ooops, sorry. How rude of me to interrupt. What were you saying???
You know, you really need to work on the 'leaving' part.
But I still see you're pretty much just a hypocrite.
Spending the money on pork-projects precludes the possibility of reducing the gas tax.
But you think you know everything. It's an ailment that is not unique to youth, regardless of what your tagline might say.
I live in Mat-Su..
True Anchorage is land locked.. the bridge would make Anchorage BOOM.. Its not even that big of a bridge.. Heck the whole area would BOOM not just Anchorage.. Bridge to nowhere is not accurate.. Any that says its NOT NEEDED.. badly.. probably don't want ANWR either.. Alaska needs the bridge, everybody needs ANWR..
If Alaska needs the bridge, Alaska can build it.
I admit that wasn't probably the best way to put it. And no, I don't think I know "everything" as some folks do. But there are facts out there that do contradict so many of the "talking points" that are not at all accurate.
Sadly, misinformation is a plague upon our nation.
True.. its not that they don't have the money already.. in the permanent fund.. same with the Pipe line(gas)..
But the princplies always are accurate.
Sadly, some people only apply their principles when something favors them. When it goes against them, they throw the principles they claim to have out the window.
And they'll rationalize it anyway they can.
or, if the bridge will be used as much as they say it will, they can raise the money to build it privately and make it a toll bridge.
Wow, we do agree on something. I would not have a problem with a toll bridge. But the fact that bridges are needed is a fact. One would have to come to Alaska and see what I refer to as our "three roads" to understand the situation. Tourism is a HUGE part of what keeps Alaska afloat. That wouldn't be the case if Alaskans could actually use our lands. But if you've been paying attention, you know all about THAT.
oops, sorry again. The duct tape fell off my mouth. ;)
the Answer #114..
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.