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. | |
|---|---|
| Chugiak Community Council President Dave Baldwin | 4/29/2009 12:41:57 PM |
| On 04/02/09, the Chugiak Community Council (“Council”) submitted a letter to Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions (AMATS) documenting the Council’s recent unanimous motion to recommend keeping the Knik Arm Crossing Project on the AMATS prioritization list. _____ Planning & Zoning Case No. 2009-075 is an amendment to delete the Knik Arm Crossing from the Anchorage Long-Range Transportation Plan. The case is scheduled to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission on 05/11/09. _____ In response to this case, the Council resubmits our previous comments in support of the bridge. Please refer to the following letter from the Council to AMATS: _____ To the AMATS Technical Advisory Committee: _____ Your 04/09/09 meeting agenda lists an amendment to the LRTP involving the Knik Arm Crossing Project. The Chugiak Community Council (“Council”) would like to make a comment on this project. _____ At two recent Council meetings, the Council discussed the Knik View Crossing Project and the possibility that this project could be deleted from the AMATS prioritization list. The Council unanimously passed a motion to recommend keeping the Knik Arm Crossing Project on the AMATS prioritization list. _____ The Council supports the idea of constructing the bridge and believes that removing the project from AMATS is short-sighted. Instead, the bridge project should be viewed as a long-term goal. The project’s value should be considered from a higher viewpoint than just from the interests of the Municipality of Anchorage. _____ The bridge would serve existing needs to: handle vehicle traffic and ease the commuting pressure imposed on the Glenn Highway; serve as an alternate north-south emergency response and disaster evacuation route; and establish the transportation infrastructure for the population and economic growth in the Mat-Su. _____ The bridge’s uses could also be expanded over time to: include the railroad; include the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail; support a utilidor; and house a power plant powered by tidal action. _____ By deleting the project from AMATS, some Council members warned that the public process could be by-passed given 1) All of the public, municipal, state, and federal input that has been collected over the years; and 2) All of the work that the Knik Arm Bridge and Tolls Authority (KABATA) has completed to date. | |
| Glen Pomeroy | 4/11/2009 3:38:21 PM |
| Removing the Knik Bridge from the Long Range Transportation Plan appears to me to be the epitome of short-range politics to the detriment of long-range planning. Without improved access, Anchorage will become more isolated than Juneau, landlocked by the 30 mile traffic jam on our one road. At least Juneau has ferry service to go along with its airport. On the bright side, short-term thinking like removing the bridge from the Long Range Transportation Plan will assure that Palmer and Wasilla become the commercial and industrial centers of Alaska. It will be interesting to watch Anchorage become the suburb of Wasilla. | |
| Paul Benson | 4/8/2009 9:15:17 AM |
| Removing the KAB from the LRTP is the right thing to do. The project is likely to create direct threats to downtown neighborhoods already suffering from the negative effects of a transportation infrastructure designed without adequate consideration to community developement needs and land use impacts. I am also concerned about the vitality of our downtown business core and what impact the KAB project would have on its' revival or decay. The KAB needs a much more extensive public process and the consent of residents in the impacted neighborhoods before it should be included again into the LRTP. | |