When
you are stuck in traffic, do you ever think “If only we
had a bridge across Knik Arm, I’d be home by now?” When you read about another traffic fatality,
do you think “A bridge would make driving safer?” I didn’t think so.
The
Knik Arm bridge has been getting a lot of press recently
with the effort to list it on the “Long Range Transportation
Plan” (LRTP). That plan is barely a year old. We’ve been talking
about the bridge for over 40 years.
If the bridge is so important, why wasn’t it put
on that list before? Because
we don’t need it nearly as much as we need many other transportation
projects.
The
money that the Knik Arm Crossing (KAC) will suck up could
be used for many other projects that are far more important
right now.
Let’s
take a look at the money. The Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority (KABATA)
has maintained for years that the bridge will cost $600
million. That’s a lot of money, but it’s probably
way low for this project. In February 15’s Anchorage Daily News we saw
the cost of the gas line went up $10 billion, that’s about
30%! The costs of relatively small Anchorage
road projects have almost doubled between 2004 and 2006.
Bids came in to the DOT for a bridge in Ketchikan $10 million
over the engineer's estimate of $17million. KABATA better check its math.
While the cost of building is shooting up, Alaska’s DOT
is pulling the money for the KAC from our allocation of
National Highway System funds. This is causing delays to fixing other important
parts of our highway system.
DOT planners say road funds are drying up so we will
have approximately $30 million per year, only enough for
one major project, into the foreseeable future.
That $30 million is less than the KABATA will pull
out of the pot each of the next five years if it can somehow
build the bridge for $600 million.
With
such low funding, we’ll have to say goodbye to the Glenn/Seward
connection (the most important project for Anchorage
according to the LRTP); safety improvements for the Seward
and Parks highways (both labeled “Safety Corridors” because
of all the serious accidents on them); the Glenn
Highway improvements and more. If those popular projects are tossed out, is
there any hope for real breakthrough projects like light
rail from the Mat-Su and useful sidewalks?
Is the bridge so important that we should let it
cut in line in front of these projects?
In
road planning jargon, Anchorage’s
road project list must be “financially constrained.” That means we need to show we can reasonably
expect to get the funding needed so “the federally supported
transportation system is being adequately operated and maintained.” Good luck with that if the KAC is added to the
list.
We
should do the most important projects first. With Alaska’s
allocation of National Highway System funds dropping and
the cost of building climbing, how many projects should
we put off to the distant future for the sake of the bridge?
Without the bridge, the DOT calculates it would take
50 years at current funding rates to complete the road projects
already identified. How much longer can we wait?
