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.
Wrong. It's total taxes paid into the treasury, not just fuel tax.
Do you have a link to support that?
I can not allow your ignorance of fact, to stand uncorrected.
You state, "Let's get one thing straight right from the start. Ketchikan and the Mat-Su valley are not "next to nowhere." They ARE nowhere. And if you choose to live 280 miles from a road, that's your privilege, but don't expect the rest of this beleagured nation to shell out millions so you can get to WalMart."
The Matanuska-Susitna Borough is the fastest growing area of Alaska. There have been recent years where the number of building permits granted there exceeded those granted in New York city and Chicago.
Because of Federal, and State, lands, reserves, and the topography, expansion of Anchorage can go only one way, into the Mat-Su.
You don't know anything about "nowhere".
As to Ketchikan, why should I waste my efforts confusing wannabe cheechakos with facts? (You can't even see "nowhere" from there).
I've been to "nowhere", and you can't see the Mat-Su, OR, Ketchikan, from there.
Cheechako wannabe bozos on parade.
Camai!
The Alaska you hear about is pretty much gone. Besides all the land being now locked up one way or another, the snowmachines and four-wheelers have made anyplace a highway, year round. You can't even run your woodstove inside Fairbanks in the winter. True most of the land does not have road access, but neither is it open to entry. 96% of the land is under Federal or State ownership, and they aren't allowing much, if any, homesteading. Don't know of any place Daniel Boone would appreciate these days, not in Alaska, maybe not on the planet.
I remember the "highways" we plowed over frozen Big Lake, connecting one bar to another. ahhh... the '70s...!
I'm not sure I get your point. Are you suggesting that Omaha is in Missiouri, or that Sacremento is?
As to the comment about the Gadsden Purchase - do you think it is anywhere near the Omaha - Sacremento rail line? Or are you bringing in other routes built later?
I appreciate the link, but I do not see where this includes leases and royalties on minerals.
2. I'm not one to cajole into spending tax money. I'd rather see roads (bridges, etc.) be the result of private enterprise. Most public roads are built by money and land taken from citizens by threat of force. (Further discussion of that warrants another thread.) If you think that bridge is a viable financial endeavor, borrow the money, build it, and charge tolls to use it (heck, you need to pay tolls to get on Manhattan - that sure ain't free at >=$3/crossing of bridge, tunnel, boat, or air transport).
3. Yes, despite any and all philisophical objections to taxes and emminent domain I may have, I do indeed use those roads (bridges, etc.) every day, about 100 miles per day. The personal philisophical principles of this one man must exist in the realities of a nation of ~300,000,000 people. The roads are there, the society relies critically upon them, change is unlikely, and the best way to feed my family right now is to drive 100 miles every day, burning Middle Eastern fossil fuels, in an SUV, on environment-pulverizing roads built by robbed tax dollars on seized property by gov't burrowcraps who did so to buy votes and line their pockets (can I make it sound any worse?); the whole process is revolting on so many levels, yet it would be stupidly impractical of me to not take advantage of the opportunity presented.
4. I see little point in the states sending huge sums to Washington just so it can all go back with relatively minor deviations in the provided sums (minus a huge handling fee, of course). If Alaska wants the bridge, Alaskans should pay for it. I sure am NOT asking YOU to pay for the widening of Rt. 441 here some 5000 miles away.
5. And speaking of widening Rt. 441: I don't want to pay for it, you don't want to pay for it, the landowners don't want their homes buldozed for it, etc. - and that's just a few miles from me ... so why suddenly should I be keen on supporting building "a bridge to nowhere" in Alaska?
6. "Bypasses are devices which allow some people to drive from point A to point B very fast whilst other people dash from point B to point A very fast. People living at point C, being a point directly in between, are often given to wonder what's so great about point A that so many people of point B are so keen to get there, and what's so great about point B that so many people of point A are so keen to get there. They often wish that people would just once and for all work out where the hell they wanted to be." - Douglas Adams
Fine. If the bridge is that important, take out a loan, build the bridge, and charge tolls. Should pay for itself pretty quick, then make a tidy profit after - right?
So why should I have to pay ... and figure out how to stretch the $1 in my pocket thru the next week?
Yea, they do! Talk to the RINOs who voted against ANWAR drilling>>>>>
If there is a community of civilization then they are entitled to any and all roads to their location that the rest of this country has.
If eliminating some of the pork to your state, (which I have no idea which one but I can guarantee you are receiving it) means roads to Ketchikan, then I am all for it.
Great! Then build 'em. And charge rent/fees/tolls/etc. covering the costs.
I have no problem paying my bit when I order a Mcfishwich.
I DO have a problem paying under threat of imprisonment, regardless of whether I order a Mcfishwich.
Yup.
Acres don't pay taxes; "per capita" do.
I say take the pork out of your state and build a road to Ketchikan......
Don't they have property taxes where you live?
And Alaska is the all time king of getting back far more from the Federal Highway fund then it pays in. By a huge amount.
"Seventeen states have been historic net donors since the
creation of the highway trust fund in 1956 (FHWA 2002 Highway Statistics, Table FE-
221). Six states have historic ratios less than 0.90: Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina,
Indiana, South Carolina, and Florida. Historically, the biggest loser has been Texas with a
ratio of .85. On the other hand, eight states have ratios greater than 2.0: North Dakota,
South Dakota, Vermont, Rhode Island, Montana, Hawaii, DC, and Alaska. The biggest
winner has been Alaska, whose ratio is 6.7."
Alaska has recieved $6.70 for every $1.00 it paid in.
En ough already.
Donor States versus Donee States:
The Geopolitical Struggle over Federal Highway Dollars
Jeffrey Brown
http://www.fsu.edu/~durp/publications/workpapers/WPS_03-03_Brown.pdf
He wasn't, all he's asking for is an avenue of affordable transportation to the same amenities that you and I take for granted on a daily basis. Such avenues which are partially funded by your Fed. govt.......You have it, so you have no right to deny him the same luxury.
"You have it, so you have no right to deny him the same luxury."
And yet again we see why the country is in the mess that it's in.
Never complain about pork spending again. You love it.
We should tax the feds for all the land they own here in Alaska! Based on property values and mill rates here in southcentral, that aught to bring in about 200 BILLION a year. Wouldn't take much time for them to turn the land over to the state then!
Isn't it interesting that so few of the complainers on this thread are reluctant to admit to their locations either on their home page or in conversation? Just might be a little embarrassing!
Just out of curiosity, what is it you do up there? What keeps you and all the other residents there all your life? I hate winters here in S.E. Michigan so I can't imagine what winters up there are like.
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.