Talking Points
Knik Arm Bridge talking points
Talking Points:
1) There is insufficient evidence that private investors will fund this
toll bridge, wholly or in part, given the worldwide credit downturn.
If not, it will be up to the state and/or Anchorage to fund the bridge
and its access roads - which could cost $1.5 billion or more according
to the Federal Highway Administration - at the expense of many local
transportation priorities. There are limited funds available for
improving transportation - Anchorage spends approximately $22
mill./year on transportation, most of it federal dollars which are
declining dramatically. There is only approximately $60 million
available for the bridge now. We don't want to build another
transportation infrastructure that we can't afford to fix, when there
are plenty of roadways, potholes, and ruts right here that are in need
of money for upgrades.
2) If the bridge were to be built, it would be expected to 'pay itself off' by collecting toll revenue. However, a recent independent cost estimate outright stated that bridge construction would not be economically feasible if the burden of paying off the bridge fell solely on the contractor. Therefore, the state and Anchorage would need to share the financial risks of low traffic - ie, not enough tolls collected. This is not a risk we are willing to take, which is why our representatives should stop the bridge.
3) The bridge off-ramp into Anchorage would significantly impact downtown Anchorage businesses, including the museum, if it connected to A-C streets. If Ingra-Gambell were the proposed route, this connection alone would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. We do not want the bridge to be constructed because it would take an even greater investment of city money to prevent adverse impacts to highly valued downtown Anchorage assets.
4) Federal resource agencies will not allow the current bridge design to proceed because of the adverse impacts it will have on salmon and the endangered Cook Inlet beluga whale. The agencies prefer a 14,000’ bridge over the current 8,200’ design (the remaining distance across Knik Arm would be filled-in causeways). The longer bridge increases bridge-building (not including access road) costs by approximately 50% according to the federal Environmental Impact Statement. This is yet another expense associated with the proposed bridge that would likely burden Anchorage and Alaskan residents with the eventual bill.
The Bottom Line: When the bridge was proposed, it was generally thought that federal funding or toll revenues would pay for it. Since that’s clearly not the case, the state or Anchorage will need to pay for it, thus sacrificing other needed transportation projects including fixing existing infrastructure and improving public transportation.
Looking for more? This is the list for you - in June 2009 the Planning and Zoning Committee in Anchorage came up with their own short list of reasons they think the Knik Arm Bridge is a bad idea. You can download their list here.
2) If the bridge were to be built, it would be expected to 'pay itself off' by collecting toll revenue. However, a recent independent cost estimate outright stated that bridge construction would not be economically feasible if the burden of paying off the bridge fell solely on the contractor. Therefore, the state and Anchorage would need to share the financial risks of low traffic - ie, not enough tolls collected. This is not a risk we are willing to take, which is why our representatives should stop the bridge.
3) The bridge off-ramp into Anchorage would significantly impact downtown Anchorage businesses, including the museum, if it connected to A-C streets. If Ingra-Gambell were the proposed route, this connection alone would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. We do not want the bridge to be constructed because it would take an even greater investment of city money to prevent adverse impacts to highly valued downtown Anchorage assets.
4) Federal resource agencies will not allow the current bridge design to proceed because of the adverse impacts it will have on salmon and the endangered Cook Inlet beluga whale. The agencies prefer a 14,000’ bridge over the current 8,200’ design (the remaining distance across Knik Arm would be filled-in causeways). The longer bridge increases bridge-building (not including access road) costs by approximately 50% according to the federal Environmental Impact Statement. This is yet another expense associated with the proposed bridge that would likely burden Anchorage and Alaskan residents with the eventual bill.
The Bottom Line: When the bridge was proposed, it was generally thought that federal funding or toll revenues would pay for it. Since that’s clearly not the case, the state or Anchorage will need to pay for it, thus sacrificing other needed transportation projects including fixing existing infrastructure and improving public transportation.
Looking for more? This is the list for you - in June 2009 the Planning and Zoning Committee in Anchorage came up with their own short list of reasons they think the Knik Arm Bridge is a bad idea. You can download their list here.
