The Environmental Impact Statement

The Knik Arm Bridge EIS fails to:

1) Consider common sense solutions and alternatives.

A variety of alternatives were proposed early on in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process but the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority (KABATA) ignored them and stuck with its very controversial bridge design. KABATA needs to consider a full range of alternatives, including:

• The Congestion Relief Alternative – Includes commuter/cargo rail, ferries, van-pool and car-pool incentives for the Glenn Highway, and improved public transit options within Anchorage (allowing commuters to move around town) – a thoughtful, inexpensive way to improve regional connectivity.

• The Anchorage Access Alternative – A bridge access route that keeps Government Hill largely intact.
  
  

2) Address the region’s real traffic and infrastructure needs.

KABATA’s own studies show that the proposed bridge won’t save the majority of existing and future commuters time or money. Anyone living east of Houston, including Wasilla, would not benefit from the bridge. 1 The bridge also would add a huge amount of traffic to already-ongested downtown Anchorage, and would reduce state funding for upgrading and maintaining existing roads.

3) Provide realistic cost figures.

Earlier cost estimates were more than $1.1 billion for the project.2 Even as construction costs have increased from 30-60 percent due to hurricane reconstruction, global demands for materials, and higher energy costs (e.g., the cost of asphalt has doubled), KABATA’s bridge cost estimate remains at $600 million. There is less than $94 million committed for the project from the federal government, and KABATA has yet to identify the source of over $500 million necessary to complete the project (likely a mix of state and local funds, private road ownership, and tolls).

4) Protect the Cook Inlet beluga whale.

 Cook Inlet beluga whales’ historical abundance was over 1,000 individuals. As of 2005, there were well under 300 Cook Inlet beluga whales and the population continues to decline. The federal government recently began a year-long process to determine whether the whale should be listed as “threatened” or “endangered” under the Endangered Species Act.3 The Knik Arm Bridge inevitably will harm these whales to some degree, e.g., pile driving will impact their sensitive hearing and the bridge will increase water velocity making it more challenging for whale passage.

1. The November, 2005 “Preliminary Traffic and Toll Revenue Study” commissioned by KABATA found that driving the proposed bridge will take people commuting from Wasilla to Anchorage nearly 12 extra minutes and will save those commuting from Houston to Anchorage only 7 minutes (Figures 5 and 4, respectively). See www.knikbridgefacts.org.
2. Knik Arm Crossing: Engineering Feasibility and Cost Estimate Update, Parsons Brinckerhoff, HDR Alaska for Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, January 31, 2003, p. 1-4.
3. See 71 Federal Register 44614 (August 7, 2006).