CityView Portal
| We are sorry but no more comments are being taken for this case |
| Return to CityView Portal |
| Submitted comments will appear below after staff approval. | |
|---|---|
| SaraEllen Hutchison | 11/7/2008 11:25:32 AM |
| It is time to remove the Knik Arm Bridge to nowhere proposal from the Long Range Transportation Plan. This project contradicts the Comprehensive Plan, would make a longer, more expensive trip between Anchorage and Wasilla, and could cost $1 billion to complete. It would drain the Anchorage tax base. The $43 million in federal taxpayers' money already wasted by the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority agency could have filled a lot of potholes in this town. We need to fix our rutted roads, incorporate modern land use planning, and build a commuter rail system. | |
| Jason Hamlin | 11/7/2008 11:00:38 AM |
| I am the Immediate Past President of the Greater Wasilla Chamber of Commerce. Our membership has been stauch supporters of building the Knik Arm Bridge for many years and their support has not waned to this day. Meetings relating to the Knik Arm Bridge have some of the largest audiences. We recognize the tremendous economic impact to the region, state and nation. We have offered a resolution of support within the past year that details the many benefits that we expect during this project and into the future. In my opinion, the most important will be a much more direct access link to the Port of Anchorage. As you know there are limitless resources in the interior that may be profitable to extract given the straightened rail line to Port Mackenzie and the possibility of adding a rail line to the bridge in the future to the Port of Anchorage. This is a very clear #2 priority to building the natural gas pipeline. Additionally, the paved road to Point Mackenzie has been completed, the rail line is in the process of being straightened (to my understanding), and millions have been spent on the launch of this project. It would be a collosal waste of public funds if this project was not seen to completion. There are no other transportation projects in this state that I am aware of that have anywhere near the potential for adding value and growing this economy. Please finish the job and we will all be thankful in the future. Best Regards, Jason Hamlin | |
| John Cassity | 11/3/2008 10:51:05 AM |
| Knik Arm Bridge Project Nature's geometry can be part of a conscious effort to preserve the aesthetics of the places we live if we incorporate geography into our long range planning. To prevent merged, multiple urban communities without visible boundaries, we have the Palmer Hayflats, the Knik Arm, and the Chugach Mountains separating Anchorage, Wasilla, Knik, and the Kenai Peninsula. Each area will develop its own population, infrastructure, and economic base, and when Knik's time comes, we may both be happier to have preserved the natural separation we now have. Why are we proud of Alaska anyway, so many of us, if not for a certain beauty, ever more difficult to find elsewhere? | |
| Amiee LeBlanc Gloe | 11/3/2008 10:22:18 AM |
| I am opposed to the Knik Bridge. Please focus efforts on reducing individual vehicle traffic by implementing commuter rail, coordinated vanpool and mass transit options with the existing infrastructure. Let's reduce emissions, improve quality of life and reduce our dependence on personal vehicles rather than building more roads and bridges that will only encourage more cars on the roads. Thank-you. | |
| Jill Johnson | 11/2/2008 8:47:15 PM |
| I am interested in a transportation plan that solves current problems, prevents sprawl, reduces gas usage and is both affordable and sustainable. For those reasons, I don't support including the Knick Arm Bridge in the Long Range Transportation Plan. Thank you for all the hard work you do! Jill Johnson | |
| Chris Kent | 11/2/2008 8:17:03 PM |
| Not supportive of the Knik Arm Bridge. There is a great need to improve access to our existing communities. Such as commuter train to Gridwood, Palmer and Wasilla. The Knik Arm Bridge would divert needed resources and promote urban sprawl all costing more in infrastructure. | |
| samia estassi | 11/2/2008 12:43:24 PM |
| Due to the extremely high cost of the bridge and more importantly the increased traffic downtown, I strongly oppose the construction of such a project. i live downtown, and would hope that you consider all the reasons that this project woudl be a bad idea for Anchorage. Let's promote a light rail to the valley instead, keeping up with the need to change the way we commute. thanks, Samia Estassi | |
| Rebecca Talbott | 11/1/2008 4:43:24 PM |
| Dear Sir or Madam, I believe the Knik Arm Bridge project should be removed from the Anchorage Long-Range Transportation Plan. Over the past 2 years, I have received numerous phone surveys about the project to which my answer is the same. I believe the Knik Arm Bridge project would undercut the successful development occurring in Anchorage today, development which is improving the quality of life and experience of visitors. This has long term economic benefits for the city. I believe the Knik Arm Bridge project negatively affect the progressive re-development occuring now, would drain the Anchorage tax base and cause sprawl. Further, I understand the project will cost over $1 billion and I do not believe that plans for cost recovery such as a toll, pencils out. In the United States today, there is increased recognition of serious infrastructure needs. I'm not concerned about our ability to raise the capital to build the bridge, but I am very concerned about our ability to maintain it without continued drain on the tax base once it is built. In addition, I believe the climate crisis and economic crisis, demands we look beyond car travel, and invest in long term transportation and energy solutions such as mass transit, light rail and alternative fuel. For all the above reasons, I look forward to seeing the Knik Arm Bridge Project out of the Transportation Plan. Let's move on. Sincerely, Rebecca Talbott | |
| Colleen Ryan | 10/31/2008 12:23:43 PM |
| It's time to lose the MacKenzie bridge proposal. It's too costly, it will diminish the Anchorage tax base, and it will create unnecessary urban sprawl. It's time for the Valley-ANC commuter train with supporting/connecting urban transport. | |
| Lynn Highland | 10/31/2008 11:50:32 AM |
| Alaska is in need of viable public transportation. One only needs to look at European cities to see how to do it and how well it works (Berlin moves over 80% of all traffic on public transportation). Encouraging increased use of private transportation in the face of climate change and oppressive fuel prices is an irresponsible course of action. Thanks. | |
| Eben Stone | 10/31/2008 11:48:56 AM |
| The Knik Arm Bridge project is a bad proposal all the way around. This project has already taken millions of dollars away from maintaining the infrastructure that we already have. If we cannot maintain what we have there is no reason to build more. The Knik Arm Bridge will only benefit speculators who have purchased the land across in the Point McKenzie area. It will not shorten the drive from the valley. This project needs to be terminated. There is no reason for it. | |
| RALEIGH ELLIOTT | 10/31/2008 10:23:17 AM |
| THE KNICK ARM BRIDGE IS A HORRIBLE IDEA. THROW THIS OUT. WE DON'T NEED IT. IT WILL BE TOO EXPENSIVE, HARMFUL TO THE ENVIRONMENT, AN EYESORE, AND A TERRORIST TARGET. | |
| Karla M Dutton | 10/31/2008 9:41:55 AM |
| I am strongly opposed to spending any additional money to explore, permit or build the Knik Arm bridge. I live in Peters Creek and I take the People Mover bus to and from work in downtown Anchorage every week day. I think our dollars are best spent to 1. improve/expand the bus system, 2. add communter rail from the Valley to Anchorage now and 3. institute improved zoning and planning requirements that reward improved use of land for development and not urban sprawl. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Karla M Dutton | |
| Stephen Cleary | 10/31/2008 8:40:49 AM |
| The Knik Arm Bridge should be removed. It is a project that is unnecessary and counterproductive. The money should be saved and spent on real solutions that would remove cars from the road. We should not follow the California model where more roads have simply meant more cars. thanks, Stephen Cleary | |
| Carl Sagert | 10/30/2008 8:37:21 PM |
| Build the Knik Arm Bridge and build it now! The sooner we get started the less it will cost. It needs to be built, and if we wait, it will cost much more down the road. (No pun intended) It will advance technology, enhance understanding of environmental concerns and the ability to complete large engineering projects in harmony with nature. It needs to be planned & built with future expansion for light rail included. The bridge will be good for the local economy and produce many new, needed jobs. We are Alaskans, Americans, and we can do it better, more responsibly and safer than anybody. We can't let a few ignorant, short sighted, nay-sayers stop a long range vision for a sound plan for the city of Anchorage. In 20 years there will be 40k to 75k people living on the other side of the inlet. We will need a robust transportation infrastructure to make it happen. We cannot afford to stick our heads in the sand and pretend it ain't gonna happen. Plan ahead, plan responsibly, and build the Knik Arm Bridge now! | |
| Rita Campbell | 10/30/2008 7:46:23 PM |
| I am completely against a Knik bridge. I am for a commuter rail between Anchorage and the Mat Su borough. We also have a good useable road between Anchorage and the Mat Su borough. A bridge would endanger sea life, and whales. This would be unaccepable, and there is virtually no way to avoid this. A bridge would drain our budget, and do little good for the amount of money expended. We need to improve the roads we have, to get the railway moving asap, and to put money into schools and wholesome recreational opportunities for young people, and all ages. The last thing we need is a bridge. I am a Mat Su resident, and I am solidly and firmly against a bridge. We don't need it! It will be an environmental and budgetary disaster. We can do better. Please do not put any more money into studying or considering the bridge. We can make much better use of our money and resources. Thank you for considering my views. | |
| Gail Heineman | 10/30/2008 6:58:59 PM |
| I urge you to remove the Knik Arm Bridge project from the Anchorage Long-Range Transportation Plan. A more appropriate, cost-effective, and forward looking project would be to create a usable mass transit system between Anchorage and the Mat-Su Valley, and within Anchorage. The use of automobiles to commute long distances to sprawling suburbs will soon be recognized as one of the most wasteful, foolish missteps of 20th century planning in the United States. | |
| Becky Long | 10/30/2008 5:58:02 PM |
| As a resident of the Mat Su Valley since 1977, I am opposed to the Knik Arm Bridge being apart of the Anchorage Long Range Transportation Plan. There are too many negative impacts from building this mega bridge. We will be paying for it for years. It will not pay for itself. It could cost $1 billion and drain the Anchorage and Mat Su tax base. Not to mention the speculative sprawl that it will stimulate. I WILL NOT USE THE BRIDGE. I believe that there should be commuter rail which I definitely would use. The Knik Arm Bridge is a white elephant. It will not save any miles. It is clearly a waste of valuable money. LET US HAVE COMMUTER RAIL. Thank you. Please consider this | |
| Mary Logan | 10/30/2008 5:54:00 PM |
| I am against the building of the Knik Arm Bridge. This is a political boondoggle that only benefits landowners on the other side of the inlet. The bridge would reduce property values in the Anchorage bowl, would contribute to sprawl, would require expensive tolls that would limit traffic across the bridge, and the money could be better used to build light rail to the Mat-Su Valley, which is a much more urgent need. When the price of gas goes back to $4 or $5 a gallon, this bridge will not in any way assist the commuting needs of the 20,000+ daily commuters from the valley. In addition to all of these reasons, the bridge would drain the Anchorage tax base by creating sprawl. And the current plans to dump traffic into downtown are opposed by most homeowners who would be affected. This bridge will create many more problems than it solves. The only reason to pursue this bridge is to pander to special friends who own land across the Inlet. | |
| Steven Stehr | 10/30/2008 4:15:43 PM |
| As a thirty year Government Hill resident and having earned my livelihood at the Port of Anchorage since 1974offers a unique position to see that the exorbitant expense, disruption of community, poor planning for traffic and business show a Knik Arm crossing to be of poor judgement. | |
| Janice Gruhn | 10/30/2008 3:00:53 PM |
| Please stop the Knik Arm Bridge project. It is far too expensive to build in this recession climate, it will only encourage urban sprawl, and it will line the pockets of the developers. This is a project that should only be built when the population is much larger than it is now or in the forseeable future. | |
| Helen Nienhueser | 10/30/2008 2:54:35 PM |
| Please delete the Knik Arm Bridge from the LRTP. I was a member of the Advisory Committee to the Long Range Transportation Plan. We never discussed the Knik Arm Bridge. In fact, I was asked by one of the consultants to please drop it because it was so uncertain that they did not want to try to deal with it. The Knik Arm Bridge is not consistent with our comprehensive plan. It would lead to a great deal of sprawl and make implementing Anchorage 2020 difficult or impossible. Helen Nienhueser | |
| Julian Mason | 10/30/2008 2:48:20 PM |
| The Knik Arm bridge is neither necessary nor desirable at any time in the foreseeable future. It will not reduce travel time to Anchorage for most Valley residents and it will be brutally expensive to build and maintain. If it is a toll bridge, the toll will be so high that people won't use it or it will be heavily subsidized. Both are unacceptable. There is no way that the construction debt can be bonded without the backing of the full faith and credit of the Muni, and that could bankrupt us. Please vote "NO." | |
| Brandon Simpson | 10/30/2008 2:16:58 PM |
| Please remove the Knik Bridge from the long-term transportation plan. The cost of the bridge and additional infrastructure it will require are not worth it. The Glenn/Seward Highway connection needs to be priority #1. Also please consider completing the coastal trail. With the work recently completed near Indian/Bird the possibility of a trail that extends from downtown Anchorage to Girdwood exists. This trail would be a huge benefit to local residents and the local tourist industry. Thanks | |
| Marsha Holbrook | 10/30/2008 2:15:48 PM |
| I strongly oppose the building of a bridge across the Knik Arm. Any benefits derived would not out weigh the enormous costs both in terms of dollars and urban sprawl. I do support creating an economical and practical mass transit system linking the communities that currently exist to the north of Anchorage to Anchorage. | |
| Celia Miller | 10/30/2008 2:15:06 PM |
| I am writing to urge the Commission to drop any future plans for the Knik Arm Bridge. I grew up in Anchorage and Chugiak, and keep seeing people push out to new commuter communities--but Southcentral has huge amounts of land, it's just inefficiently used. Instead of spending huge amounts to create more sprawling suburbs, we need to look into using the land already developed. Alaska has already spent too much looking into this project, and the bridge is not worth a billion dollars. How much will those costs increase with belugas now listed as an endangered species? The Knik Arm Bridge is a boondoggle. Let's look at real solutions for transportation and livable, walkable communities--not just blindly grope for more space. | |
| Susan Abbott | 10/30/2008 2:12:20 PM |
| Please scrap the Knik Arm Bridge project. I do not believe this is a good use of a huge chunk of cash, and it's the wrong direction to go toward solving our traffic problems. Oil prices are down at the moment, but I believe this is only temporary and that high gas prices are here to stay. We should be using our resources instead for expanding and upgrading our bus system; putting in a light rail system to the Valley, and possibly a second one south; investing in clean renewable energy projects; and public relations messages to encourage people to use our new and improved public transportation. We need to cure our addiction to oil. Thank you. | |
| Diana Redwood | 10/30/2008 2:10:20 PM |
| Please remove the Knik Arm Bridge from the Anchorage Long-Range Transportation Plan. I grew up in Palmer and commuted into Anchorage daily. Rather than a bridge that will be very expensive; not reduce commute time for people living in Palmer and Wasilla; and lead to greater sprawl in the southcentral region, we should focus attention towards more sustainable transportation and development. Please remove the bridge from future planning efforts. Thank you. | |
| Jeffry Schmitz | 10/29/2008 5:20:33 PM |
| Please remove the Knik Arm Bridge from the LRTP; it is far too expensive, problematic, risky and underplanned to say the least. No concrete consideration has been given to infrastructure needs on either shore; schools, police, fire, EMS, sewer, water, landfill planning and funding are missing from the west shore, connections are hugely missing and non funded on the East shore. I say this in the face of a bridge benefiting me personally as my family owns recreational property in the Willow area that would be somewhat faster and more convenient to access. | |
| Ann Gabler | 10/16/2008 1:25:45 PM |
| Yes, remove the Knik Arm Bridge Crossing. The money can be better spent on improving and maintaining existing state transportation infrastructure like roads and bridges, and the state ferry system. Better yet, explore the possibility of building new spurs to the Alaska Railroad to benefit all Alaskans - not just those of us living in Southcentral. Build more railroads to outlying towns and villages. No more Bridges to No Where! | |
| Paul Benson | 10/16/2008 12:12:04 PM |
| The time is not yet right for a Knik Arm Crossing Project. 1) This idea needs much more research and needs to be more closley linked to developing areawide mass transit. 2) There needs to be an agressive public process that reaches out to residents whom are in the low income neighborhoods surrounding downtown and a study needs to made to examine the impacts this project would have on the quality of life for the thousands of residents living in the neighborhoods of greater downtown, as well as how the vitality of Anchorages commercial center may be impacted. 3) When/if the project is built we should make certain the bridge project is property of the people of Alaska so that it serves our interests. | |
| Josh Klauder | 10/16/2008 9:18:25 AM |
| Yes, please remove the Knik Arm Crossing from plans! It represents a giant leap for our transportation infrastructure - in the WRONG DIRECTION. It is very clear that we need to be spending our dwindling transportation dollars in ways that do not dig us deeper into the same holes. We need to be moving towards mass transit, less sprawl, telecommuting, etc. And, please note, the KAC would do nothing for the vast majority of current valley-to-Anchorage commuters, except add a longer option with a toll! | |