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.
move!
Fine by me.
The Pacific Railway Act
July 1, 1862
(U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. XII, p. 489 ff.)
An Act to aid in the Construction of a Railroad and Telegraph Line from the Missouri River to the Pacific Ocean.
You must have had a different history book than mine. I was taught the Louisiana Purchase used Federal Funds. And the Federal Government spent tax payer dollars on those military troops.
You need to learn your history. The land was mostly purchased from France and Spain.
No, that's a real short summary off the top of my head. Some of us actually do have a clue.
Anyway, the road systems in this country are paid for by all, traveled by all.
But they don't go everywhere. I've seen some very inaccessable areas, and my desire for a road there is not going to be fulfilled - and I'm not going to whine about it.
If anyone lives in "nowhere" next to "nothing" you do and perhaps it is you that should move. LOL
Huh? I live near Atlanta.
Clue...And Atlanta is CONNECTED to the outside world by roads and bridges all built by Georgia taxpayers????? I will have to check but last I knew Georgia was one of the states on the plus side of receiving federal dollars.
One of the reasons for assembling the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia was that the Union was crumbling and the international and interstate commerce was getting desperate. The Confederacy had no way to repay its bonds, which were turning into wallpaper, and there was no national road, canal, interstate road development going on. Ten short years and it looked bad for the USA. There was no road, not even the famous one that gradually narrowed and ended running up a tree, into the Northwest Territories, which the Ohio Company found a severe impediment to development. The new Federal Gov't set about building roads and canals, but, oddly, the Founding Fathers were not unanimous on the issue, nor were they of one mind on much of anything. The debate on internal improvements began then, and continues to this date.
Try this on for size:
Federal earmarks in Alaska = $2.15 per Acre
Federal earmarks in Washington State = $10.85 per Acre
So easy to manipulate statistics.
No, it appears to be you who, in your words, needs to learn your history. The Transcontinental Railroad ran from Omaha, NE to Sacramento, CA. The western portions were acquired from Mexico as a result of the Mexican War (Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848). The Central portions were acquired with the annexation of Texas (1845), which acquired it as a result of the Texas Revolution. Only the eastern portions would have been covered by the purchase of the French claims in the Louisiana Purchase. (Note, the French purported to transfer land which they did not actually hold, and which claims conflicted with the claims of the Texans.)
So perhaps 1/3 or less would have been over land purchased from France.
As to what was covered by the Florida Purchase (my guess as to what you were referring to as a purchase from Spain), the US gave up claims to territory in the west which France purported to have conveyed. (Yes, they did get rights to Oregon, but that was well out of the way of the railroad route.) But they didn't purchase any land later used for the Railroad. In fact, the land ceded to Spain was largely what was acquired from Texas in 1848.
The situation isn't analogous to the Alaska boondoggle at all. A more similar situation would be if the Feds would give a private developer small tracts of inacessable land in the Alaskan interior in exchange for building a road through the area. Perhaps the government could buy up the island in question at present values, and give 1% of the land to whoever would build the bridge at their own expense.
Yes, because mine accurately pointed out that the Railroad ran from Omaha, Nebraska, not anywhere in your pictured Missouri.
And your other map doesn't accurately reflect what was acquired in the Louisiana Purchase, either. (France purported to sell more, the Americans purchased less). The western boundaries were established by the Florida Purchase treaty.
As for what the railroads got, they got rights to a small portion of the then largely worthless land that they crossed. The Feds got far more increase in value to their retained land than they gave up in the value of the land transferred. They also got some loans from the feds.
The routes from Sacramento to Oregon, and Sacramento all the way to New Orleans had the same land grants provided for by the Federal Government.
Not Quite.
Pacific Railway Act (1862)
The question of "internal improvements" was constantly before Congress in the 19th century: Should Congress assist in improving the country’s transportation system? One such improvement was the dream of constructing a railroad that would cross the entire country. In the 1850s Congress commissioned several topographical surveys across the West to determine the best route for a railroad, but private corporations were reluctant to undertake the task without Federal assistance. In 1862 Congress passed the Pacific Railway Act, which designated the 32nd parallel as the initial transcontinental route and gave huge grants of lands for rights-of-way. The act was an effort to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from the Missouri River to the Pacific Ocean and to secure the use of that line to the government.
The legislation authorized two railroad companies, the Union Pacific and the Central Pacific, to construct the lines. Beginning in 1863, the Union Pacific, employing more than 8,000 Irish, German, and Italian immigrants, built west from Omaha, NE; the Central Pacific, whose workforce included over 10,000 Chinese laborers, built eastward from Sacramento, CA. Each company faced unprecedented construction problems—mountains, severe weather, and the hostility of Native Americans. On May 10, 1869, in a ceremony at Promontory, UT, the last rails were laid and the last spike driven. Congress eventually authorized four transcontinental railroads and granted 174 million acres of public lands for rights-of-way.
Along with 15 million dollars from the US Treasury.
Transcript of Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848), see Article XII
Are you kidding me?
Commercial fishing is the second largest industry in the state, it is overwhelmingly comprised of small business operations that operate all up and down the 33,904 miles of Alaskan shoreline. The largest share of Alaskan fishing vessels represent individual small businesses whose annual gross earnings pay crew shares, food, fuel, gear, and other supplies as well as debt overhead, insurance and TAXES!. Each year the seafood industry pumps in excess of $3 billion into the state and national economy. This industry would be impossible without Ports, Bridges and Harbors.
Think about that the next time you order a Mcfishwich.
174 million acres is a small portion?
I moved to where I live now because of the remote-ness. The peace and quiet, the tranquility, the wildlife.
Then they built roads. Then came street lights. Then came a school. Then came the drugs. Then came section 8.
"Nowhere" sounds pretty good to me about now.
:O)
P
Nothing about any payments to France or Spain there. And that was the point we were discussing.
In the context of what was traversed by the 4 lines, yes.
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.