The newly passed federal transportation bill includes $220 million to help replace the Alaska Way Viaduct, a project I-912 supporters apparently feel is a total waste of money. So I wonder how they feel about the $220 million the bill also gives to the state of Alaska to build a bridge between Ketchikan (population: 8,000) and Gravina Island (population: 50)…? The bridge would be taller than the Brooklyn Bridge, nearly as long as the Golden Gate… and replace a 7-minute ferry ride.
Uh-huh.
But then, since both Alaska and the US Senate are run by Republicans — and the GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility — this must be a wise, thrifty use of taxpayer money, right? And I guess it also makes sense that 8,050 people in Alaska should get as much money as a tiny little town like Seattle.
Alaska Senator Ted Stevens defends the bridge, saying it is well worth the money.
“I remember when I was a young person in California, when people accused the people in Washington (D.C.) of being wasteful in thinking about building a bridge called the Golden Gate Bridge because no one lived in Marin County at the time.”
Um… yeah Ted… only difference is, Marin County isn’t in fucking Alaska!
Just thought somebody should point that out.
Interesting. I read an article on the Anchorage Daily News website about how a few Alaskans were riled up when Sec. Mineta hailed the Alaska Railroad as a model of a profitable passenger railroad. First, it is full service, freight and passenger. Second, the State of Alaska owns the track. Third, the Passenger Department revolves around the cruise ship industry.
As for the bridge, it definately would seem to be a big waste of money, unless everybody in Ketchikan goes over to the other town for the weekend. Another project in Alaska that made no sense was the ARR Depot at Ted Stevens International Airport in Anchorage. The Depot also revolves around the cruise ship industry, and is empty 8 months out of the year.
Agreed the bridge is a waste of money. You failed to mention, though, that the Ketchikan airport is on the island. Nice omission, maybe you’ve never been to Ketchikan and ridden that little ferry. Or maybe you’re just spouting off blindly.
This pork bridge is reminiscent of our Sound Transit light rail “maybe to the airport.” How much federal money is going to ST’s link to Tukwila? Maybe you should whine about that money instead of Steven’s Alaskan pork. If all the powers that be had any scruples, they would have funded the viaduct fix before they sold us the Sound Transit boondoggle.
Goldy, how many of your entrenched Democrat “leaders” stood up and said “Lets make the viaduct a priority before we spend billions on ST link” or the monorail for that matter. Or the huge general fund “emergency” spending increase last session? Zero. That’s why your whole argument that “Voting for 912 will kill people when the viaduct falls” is so bogus.
I’ve said before that these jokers can’t or won’t set priorities. I stand corrected: they fund their boondoggles first, and leave the essential pieces like the viaduct till last, only funded with the most unpopular taxes like a new “emergency” gas tax. Setting us all up for BS arguments like the one we’re hearing against 912.
zip @ 2
“I’ve said before that these jokers can’t or won’t set priorities. I stand corrected: they fund their boondoggles first, and leave the essential pieces like the viaduct till last, only funded with the most unpopular taxes like a new “emergency” gas tax. Setting us all up for BS arguments like the one we’re hearing against 912.
You are, sadly, misguided.
The priorties for projects under the legislation is clearly specified. (It is worth reading). Bringing the monorail into this is complete nonsense—that is a Seattle project mandated by an initiative. Both light rail and monorail are not part of the gas tax increase.
You may recall that State highway funding was trashed by I695, followed by a failure of a referendum to restore the necessary highwy funding several years later.
We have had a huge hole in revenue generation for 6 years. That hole is not going to go away if I912 passes. It is going to get worse. The needs for highway infrastructure improvement are not going to go away. They are going to get worse.
DJ: The hole created in I695 was due to the WAvcar valuation system. My younger brother lives in Virginia. He collects vintage cars. They too have a car tax but it’s calculation is on the existing Kelly Blue Book value. The WA governor was told to change the valuation system, but he chose not to. Did you purposely omit that from your argument? Or is it “Stupid is as stupid does?”
Support full WA State accounting audits not like this new law of smoke and mirror audits and I’ll join you for paying more taxes. Until then…
Also, where were our great senators on this bill? Why didn’t they get more money out of this >$250MMM bill for us? Oh that’s right, WA State likes democratic minority senators.
Regarding the monorail; when the silent majority views the salaries taken, the overruns projected, the timing and coverage length diminished, they lump it in with other transportation arguments. The dead fish is rottening quickly. Only your side doesn’t seem to fathom or comprehend that!
“Silent Majority”. Interesting….. Reviving a divisive phrase invented by Spiro Agnew. The silent majority has never been silent or the majority.
Goldy is right – the bridge in AK is a boondogle. At ~$4.4 MIL per resident the US could save a bunch of money buying of them them $1 MIL boats and building covered dock facilities.
The repubs seemed to only want less pork when the dems ruled Congress. They only seemed to want a balanced budget when Clinton said no. Given the current repub majority WA should not be surprised that with dem Reps and Senators the pork flows elsewhere.
Maybe if the good folks in Seattle had allowed I-5 to be built properly we would not be in this mess.
Reply to 4
I find it strange that you completely overlooked contractor profits in your litany of waste. The kind of profits that build 25,000 square foot mansions for paving company owners ….
Goldy, you’ve just about beaten this dead-horse issue to a bloody pulp. All the whining about this issue in the world is not going to change to fact that it will more than likely pass. Just like you liberals loved to say over the BS “Governor” end results; I say to you the same: ‘MOVE ON!!’ Give me a call if anybody wants some cheese to go with that big bottle of cheap “whine”. Go I-912 go!! Thanks.
Reply to 6
Well, I think you understand the physics of politics better than Goldy does. Pork grease is what makes the wheels of Congress turn. It’s no more expendable than the oil in your car’s engine crankcase — if you don’t pour in the pork grease, the whole machinery of Congress seizes up, and you go nowhere.
I guess what I’m saying is the way you get a ferry dock in Seattle is by building a bridge to nowhere in Alaska ….
It’s like buying a water ski boat, you have to give wifey a new car first ….
Been to Alaska? Driven down the Kenai penninsula? Wonderful, wide highways there to handle very little traffic.
I stopped at a local eatery and asked a waitress why these multi-lane, beautiful highways were built and she said because the Alaska Senator was in charge of the funds — and no one around wanted these highways.
The Republicans are no different than the Democrats in this matter (W. Viriginia, I understand, has plenty of unnecessary federally-funded beautiful highways thanks to their Democrat Senator leader).
Bottom line is our system invites pork…and the party in power gets the bacon.
Reply to 9
If I-912 passes, as it probably will, you won’t be moving anywhere, let alone move on. If I-912 passes, you’d better invest in a pile of CDs for your car’s CD player, because all you’re going to be doing in your car is listening to CDs. It sure has all won’t be moving, let alone going anywhere. Or you could use your car as a lawn ornament.
Don’t worrie even when I-912 passes with 68% of the vote you will still get your federal hand out…because it’s NOT tied to the gas tax…and as we have seen in the past no matter what the people say the via the vote ..those in power will go against our wishes just like they did with Safeco Field!
“Mark” @ 15
Not sure which “Mark” you are, but please clarify your posting name.
You are not me, the original Mark.
Goldy,
While you’re considering(?) a “preview” feature, perhaps you’d consider some sort of a “registered user name” function? You could post without signing in, but if you tried to post under a “registered” name, you’d have to provide a password. This would prevent idiots on both sides from pretending to be one of the established posters.
Well since this is the first time I have visited this site and of course the first time I have posted here I didn’t realize that using my actual first name would classify me as an “idiot”…But it doesn’t surprise me that someone like yourself would label someone with a negative name for using their actual name, since it’s apparent that we don’t agree. So let’s suffice it to say that this is Mark from M.V.
A little info about the Ketchikan bridge.
There is no “town” on the Gravina side, just scattered folks living on small properties.
It is true the airport is on the Gravina side. It’s been there for 30 years, served by a reliable ferry system that handles a moderate amount of passenger and vehicle traffic back and forth. The ferry terminals don’t take up much space, and the ferry trip itself is part of the fun of traveling to Ketchikan (even, for me at least, when it’s blowing freezing rain sideways at 40 knots in February).
The new bridge would require an enormous footprint: To clear Tongass Narrows (the very narrow body of water separating Ketchikan’s island from Gravina) with sufficient height to allow the gigantic cruise ships that sail out of Seattle to pass below, the highways leading to the bridge would have to start far SOUTH of town, rise up and hit the bridge, cross to Gravina, then go up to the NORTH end, where the terminal is. The short ferry trip would be replaced by a long, obnoxious drive. No longer would passengers be able to “walk” over to the terminal — unless they wouldn’t mind a 15-mile trek with their baggage. There’s also the issue of who will maintain this bridge — you know, plow the snow and ice off it in the winter.
The bridge will also be an enormous eyesore. The semi-picturesque town now will be dwarfed by this monstrosity. Can’t imagine what the cruise ship denizens will think.
In short, this bridge has nothing to do with convenience. It has a lot to do with a small number of politically well-connected land speculators who have bought large chunks of property on Gravina and who will make a mint when the bridge goes in and they can develop and sell out. Another beneficiary is Seley Construction, the company that built a sawmill and depot north of the airport. The borough (Alaska’s version of a county) has already built Seley a road to the airport. Very nice of Ketchikan taxpayers to do that.
And of course there couldn’t be any link between the bridge, the nuclear submarine noise-testing facility north of Ketchikan and the Army’s road-building “exercise” on Annette Island (the next stepping stone south of Gravina).
Having said all that, I’m ambivalent about the bridge. On one hand, it’s an enormouse waste of taxpayer money, the benefits will be to a relative few, and the environmental damage will be large. On the other hand, bridges have been built in Juneau and Sitka and are now part of the landscape; expansion of the human footprint around Ketchikan is inevitable; and some of that $220 million will land in the pockets of my brothers and sisters.
It’s always easy for Seattle liberals to bash transportation project funding in Alaska, especially when they don’t have a geographic clue. Yes, Ketchikan is a small town in population, but it also the major commercial hub for a large portion of Southeast Alaska – and the primary access is the airport on Gravina Island. If the only place to build SeaTac airport was on Vashon Island, do you think it would make sense to build a bridge to Seattle? The other bridge project across Knik Arm near Anchorage is proposed for exactly the same reason we have bridges across Lake Washington; a growing portion of population and commerce has to commute across a body of water. A two mile bridge makes sense when it eliminates a 40 mile drive around. So my advice to liberal critics is STFU if they are too lazy to look at a map and understand there are other transportation solutions beyond mass transit.
Mark who is always RIGHT-
These LEFTIST PINHEADS won’t stop until they convince us we should pay for the AWV/Seattle Waterfront Beautification Program under the guise of a “transportation emergency”.
They are disingenuous, factually deficient and stupid. They are merely sheep of the Seattle LEFTIST ELITE who will benefit with BILLIONS of real estate inflation if they get these fools to carry their bacon. They are fools.
I gave them the formula.
1) Take the $220 million of Federal Money
2) The balance to do “reasonable repairs” to bring the AWV up to a “reasonable standard of safety” comes from Gas Tax (generously $500 million–$1 billion).
3) The balance comes from SEATTLE bonding paid for by TOLLS.
SEATTLE is on the hook for ALL the asthetics. SEATTLE is on the hook for ALL COST OVERRUNS. It’s SEATTLE’s project beyond “reasonable repairs”!!!!
Is that good enough? Not for the LEFTIST PINHEADED crowd!! They are a bunch of fuzzy visionary FREELOADERS. SCREW ‘EM!
I have to agree with Goldy on this one. If it looks like pork, and smells like pork, it’s probably pork.
I despise Republican pork as much as Democrat pork. I’m not sure what Goldy’s solution is, but mine would be to have a smaller federal budget by not passing pork laden bils like this one. Then if this bridge is really necessary, the state of Alaska can build it.
Mark from MV @ 17
Sorry, didn’t mean to imply that you’re an idiot. Welcome to HA.
There have been some problems with people both deliberately and accidentally using existing posters names and writing things that not only don’t match the “original” posters ideology, but are sometimes incendiary or simply full of crap.
Mr. Cynical @ 20 –
The only problem with that is that it is against state law to toll something that’s paid for. That’s the roadblock that the Narrows Bridge people ran into and why the existing bridge doesn’t have a toll on it.
Brent @ 23,
The only problem with that is that it is against state law to toll something that’s paid for. That’s the roadblock that the Narrows Bridge people ran into and why the existing bridge doesn’t have a toll on it.
That WAS the case. Then they changed the state constitution to allow it. The old Narrows bridge will ALSO have a toll on it. See why we are so pissed off over here?
Rick @ 19:
Comparing the Ketchikan airport to a SeaTac on Vashon is geographically peculiar — Gravina’s across a very narrow channel, so it’s a very quick ferry-ride from the townside dock, and boats leave every 15 minutes.
But the bigger peculiarity of the comparison is the amount of traffic served: “The major commercial hub for southeast Alaska” has a total scheduled airline service to its airport amounting to six or seven Alaska Airlines in-&-out flights per day, that’s it. A lot of the air traffic to Ketchikan is by float-plane to the downtown docks, and the airport’s little ferries transfer around a thousand passengers a day – not only airline passengers arriving or departing, but airport workers, boat-ride tourists, truckers with cargo, counted once each direction.
All that’s versus SeaTac’s nearly 1000 air operations per day, with some 80,000 air passengers alone.
The comparison doesn’t argue for the Ketchikan bridge.
Mark @ 22
Apology accepted!…Thank you for the clarification.
pbj @ 24
“Then they changed the state constitution to allow it. The old Narrows bridge will ALSO have a toll on it. See why we are so pissed off over here? ”
The toll will be paid eastbound only. So I’m not sure how both bridges can have a toll on them. The toll is to pay off the bonds issued for the construction of the new bridge and improvements to the old bridge. So I guess I don’t see why people are so pissed off “over there”.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projec...../tollinfo/
“Initially, travelers headed in the eastbound direction will be charged a $3 roundtrip toll.”
“The toll will be removed once the cost of the bridge is paid.”
Isn’t this the fairest way to pay for the improvements,
I am a proud liberal, working in a nest of others of my kind. None of us believe the tunnel is affordable. But something must be done.
Re: @ 14 Roger Rabbit,
As usual, you think you know everything; and once again you’re incorrect. Turns out I don’t live in King County or Seattle so I don’t much give a flying fuck about the AWV. That’s the whole damn point; it’s your problem. You pay for it. It turns out in fact the Alaskan Way Viaduct is a “transportation emergency” and yeah it’s YOURS!
Re: @ 20 Mr. Cynical,
Agreed, and well said. Damn LEFTIST PINHEADS!! Some of these people think they’re just holier than thou. But then again, naivety is the basis for most Dem. politics in this State anyway.
Mark1-
Some naivety on your part. If the AWV goes down, it will paralyze the Port of Seattle. The port supports the entire state, and no, Tacoma and the rest of Puget Sound do not have the capacity to take up the slack. Hwy 99 is a state highway. It must be upgraded to a safe condition. And no, safe does not mean a tunnel. Also yes, tolls are OK.
Funny that so many Republicans loathe the idea of a ten cent gas tax to pay for transportation projects all over the state, but they don’t spew nearly as much text about the extra dollar we’re coughing up that goes straight to greedy, out of state gas companies and the people who are funding madrassahs throughout northern Africa.
“They are a bunch of fuzzy visionary FREELOADERS.”
Then there’s Mr. Cynical, who wants to defend a useless bridge to the middle of nowhere in Alaska because he claims the area is central to the AK economy, but doesn’t seem to notice that Seattle is central to the WA economy. Just like in the rest of the country, in fact the rest of the world, urban areas are more economically productive.
In spite of what seems to be the belief of some commenting on this site, people in Seattle don’t automatically get an inheritance and a permanent seat at Starbucks. I can’t believe it needs to be said, but the vast majority of the people in Seattle have to work for a living. You know the old joke about how, if Bill Gates were to walk into a bar, the per average income in the bar would go up by about a billion dollars. But it’s still just 50 working stiffs and Bill Gates.
If the gas tax stays in place, allowing the state to repair several roads that really need it, most of it will still be paid out of the pockets of King, Pierce and Snohomish counties.
Re: @ 30: Thats the same old argument that I hear all the time. I doubt it has as much of an impact on the Port Of Seattle as you think. Tolls are OK with me.
natasha–@31–
Precisely WHERE did I defend that bridge in Alaska????
You are a typical LEFTIST PINHEAD who makes things up and demonizes people who disagree to make your point.
I have said repeatedly….the Republicans in Washington DC are fiscally IRRESPONSIBLE. The Democrats in Olympia are fiscally IRRESPONSIBLE. They count on sheep like you to validate whatever they say based on partisan loyalty. You are a fool!
Eh, all you twits start to sound alike after a while, your comment (which was a direct repeat of one in another thread) was just below the one defending the bridge & I should have noticed the lack of incoherent all caps proclamations. But I’ll stand by the fact that you & your bedfellows sure pick the most trivial stuff to get worked up about, and the fact that you’re too thick to get that if the infrastructure of a major city in this state suffers, the economy of the whole state will suffer. Screwing us screws you, but the orgasmic joy you get out of the misfortune of others will probably shield you from noticing.
You’ve also continued to suggest that people in the Seattle area are freeloaders. Which is funny, because if we didn’t work, where would we get the money to buy the lattes ;) Seattleites earn more, pay more into the state coffers, they generate more trade and you’re just sick with jealousy because deep down you know that liberal areas are more productive. It’s just the truth, and the only thing you have in response are abstract proclamations that fit some mold of propriety in your head and have nothing to do with the real world.
Then you say I’m demonizing people, while you shout “LEFTIST PINHEAD” in every post. Now I know why Goldy doesn’t just kick your troll arse right off this board: your a self-propelled billboard for the idiocy of your position.
PBJ @ 24 –
Actually, residents of Pierce County sued the state over the toll going onto the existing bridge, citing the very law regarding tolls on paid-for structures. They won, which is why no toll is being collected on the existing bridge (and why they never have started collecting, or we all know damn well they would be).
You’re not the only one mad about it. The whole new bridge is a joke. Sure, there’s wider lanes, but what kind of foresight was it to just do two HOV lanes, anyway?
Whoever thought one HOV lane is sufficient needs to quit huffing the exhaust pipe.
Brent @ 35,
I was under the impression that the legislature had changed the law to allow for collection of tolls on the old bridge as well as the new one. Are you saying that is not the case? So when the new bridge opens there will only be a toll on the new one?
You’ve also continued to suggest that people in the Seattle area are freeloaders. Which is funny, because if we didn’t work, where would we get the money to buy the lattes ;) Seattleites earn more, pay more into the state coffers, they generate more trade and you’re just sick with jealousy because deep down you know that liberal areas are more productive.
Yeah Natasha it is jealousy. Damn you got us figured out. Since you are so rich, how about paying your fair share? I mean it only makes sense in the “progressive ” mindset to do so right? So why are you complaning? We are just allowing Seattle to be more “progressive” when we decline the opportunity to pay for your AWV.