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.
You have fallen hook, line and sinker for the "talking points" on this issue. It is quite obvious that you simply refuse to even contemplate that facts that are easily available to you.
You said to me, "Thanks for stepping up and proving you really don't have any conservative principles." That was an undeserved insult against me and one that is not only uncalled for, but totally wrong.
There's a news "flash" waiting for you bunny, but you'll have to open your mind before you can receive it.
You can try to rationalize it all you can.
Plainfact is that most people here defending this are nothing more than hypocrites. They rail on about out of control federal spending and pork projects - until it gets to their home states - then, of course, all that pork is justified in one way or another.
I do not know the answer to that, tongass kid. Perhaps there is another FReeper who would know. I do know there is plenty of oil up here that could and should be drilled, but unfortunately I have learned quite well that far too many people don't know diddly-squat about Alaska, the land, the people, the oil fields, tundra, caribou, etc.
bull pucky
At least the word, "rational" is in MY vocabulary. ;)
If that's true and is so worthwhile, then why shouldn't they pay for it themselves then? It will pay for itself in a few years and they will get all that money back in increased tax revenues, right?
flash...If you live in NY state that tax money thing is incorrect.
So the fact that one idiotic boondoggle was once funded justifies funding another one now? I'm against BOTH you know.
no, it's "rationalization"
Also, "hypocrisy" is a big word for you to deal with...unless you support federal tax dolllars on pork projects throughout the country.
Was the big dig a-ok with you?
Was it built with federal money? (trick question)
A lot of the interstate highway system goes "nowhere."
No, a lot of the interstate highway system CROSSES "nowhere," to get to somewhere else important.
Coming from a state that tried that once, I can tell you that numbers 1, 2, and 3 worked out reasonably well (though number 3 took three years). It's that number 4 that you need to rethink. It won't turn out that way.
Don't like it? MOVE.
Oh sorry, I should have told you that "rational" is the root word of "rationalization". You can't rationalize something if you don't know the meaning of being "rational" in the first place.
Listen, I realize that you must enjoy insulting others who happen to disagree with you, but I do not enjoy it. Like I said, there is plenty of facts and other points of views out there that you can, or as you so choose, NOT consider before you slam people.
Have a lovely evening. :)
Oh good. Pentronski is here. You and flashbunny can now amuse yourselves. The floor is ALL yours.
The bush pilots paid us off to cancel your bridge.
You hate being wrong, and hate even more being told so.
Whatever.
Nice way to 'bow out' gracefully.
Just enjoy your pork.
oink. oink.
Didn't get the memo? They're forced to live in alaska.
They can't move because the rest of us mean bastards won't build a road for them.
Ah, you're most definitely wrong on that comment. I do not hate being wrong, and actually take "being wrong" with grace and humor. I'm the first one to admit when I've made an error in judgement. Everyone who knows me personally would tell you that. But you don't know me personally, so your insult will fall on deaf ears. :)
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.