Comments

Trash wrote on Jul 1, 2009 11:08 AM:

" Keep the Anchorite city trash across the water-
If they don't like the size of the City of Anchorage, then they can all go back to Seattle & Portland where they can wear sandles-Drink latte's & eat sprout sandwiches.
I suggest a Toll-Booth on the existing Glenn Hwy flats where the Mat-Su Borough can charge the Anchorites a toll of $5 per car, $10 per Mtr. Home so they can trash our beautiful lakes & streams. "




Palmer Farm wrote on Jul 1, 2009 7:53 AM:

" A 'greenie'?! HA! Right! No 'greenie's here, bub. If you'd read previous posts you'd have already figured that out! It's ridiculous to have a bridge from Knik to Anchorage. It serves no purpose (what? ALL those commuters in Knik make it worthwhile? Because the distance difference for anywhere further north is negligible. Hardly worth the expense of a bridge! No, the only benefit would be for ghetto Anchorage to spread it's filth, congestion and crime around a little more. No thanks. We LIKE Anchorage staying contained while the rest of us live in Alaska... "




Goofy wrote on Jun 30, 2009 6:25 PM:

" Just as goofy as a greenie saying we shouldn't build because we might hurt a tree. Bridges get built all the time without this much fuss. It's part of life in urban areas. Get used to it. It will have to happen sooner or later. It will only get more expensive to do with time. "




Earthquake Facts wrote on Jun 30, 2009 4:57 PM:

" In the event of an earthquake the bridge is the last way to go. Everyone with sense knows not to get on a bridge after an earthquake. Besides all bridges are closed and inspected by DOT after quakes. Save fuel? If you live in Houston you would save 14 miles of travel distance but then have to pay a toll. Where is the savings? It makes no sense to build other than to spill the rotting Anchorage problems into the valleys hands. Oh-we dont have superstructure set up either.Think of that cost on your taxes! RIP bridge! "




Palmer Farm wrote on Jun 30, 2009 3:14 PM:

" That has got to be the goofiest logic I have seen applied to why they need to connect filth-heap Anchorage to Knik. 'Earthquake safety'...for the love of pete... "




To Earthquake wrote on Jun 30, 2009 9:29 AM:

" I agree that there are risks involved with a bridge and earthquakes, however, that goes for all current bridges near Anchorage, both going north and south. To not have another way to evacuate is just stupid. Not only for Anchorage, but the whole Kenai Peninsula. There's only one way out by road. Period. Disasters take many forms. It's just bad planning to not build it. Anchorage isn't getting any smaller, growth happens whether we want it to or not. We need that bridge. "




Point Mac wrote on Jun 30, 2009 9:06 AM:

" People at Point Mac avoiding anchorage? Not even in your dreams. Why do you think the traffic on KGB is the way it is. I can't tell you how many women are running over 90 miles one way to go to Costco every other day. They're addicted to Costco and just can't stop. The sad part is that they actually believe they're saving money. That letter must've been written by a man who isn't aware of women's habits, or doesn't know what his wife is doing all day. Build the bridge. "




oh boy wrote on Jun 29, 2009 8:51 PM:

" Fuel saved? Only if you are one of the few that live near Point Mac...most there avoid Anchorage like the plague. It's closer and cheaper to go the old way for everyone else. When you tac on the toll for the bridge (both ways) few would use it. The bridge would never pay for itself, much less its upkeep. "




to All for it wrote on Jun 29, 2009 6:51 PM:

" Good idea. Build a bridge for 'earthquake safety.' Maybe we should implement that sort of logic nationwide. I'm sure the current spend-a-holic administration would have no problem forking over a few trillion dollars for bridges all over the nation for 'earthquake safety'.
Oh, and it'll look neat when the earthquake hits and the bridge carrying all the Anchorageites to safety falls into the bay... "




All for it wrote on Jun 29, 2009 4:53 PM:

" I'm all for the bridge. Anchorage is an island in an earthquake prone area with one road in and out. Whine about the environment blah blah blah, but from a safety standpoint it's just poor planning to not build it. Name another city this size that only has one road in and out..... They know better. The bridge should've been built years ago. "




to Sam wrote on Jun 29, 2009 3:35 PM:

" "Real Estate we could develop" i.e. bulldoze, log, clear and build, build, build. Traffic, congestion, crime, pollution...gosh, Anchorage spilling onto Knik. Sounds great. "




Sam Ford wrote on Jun 29, 2009 9:51 AM:

" If you build a road (bridge), people will go there. Think about the real estate we could develope. Relieve the congestion.
New fishing holes. the possibilities are endless.
Vote for the bridge "




Power Wagon wrote on Jun 29, 2009 8:29 AM:

" Look at a map. The 'fuel saved' is miniscule, at best, for those rigs headed to Fairbanks. Hardly worth building a bridge. "




R.I.P. Bridge To Nowhere wrote on Jun 28, 2009 11:09 PM:

" To claim that "fuel would be saved" is nothing short of laughable and preposterous. What of the wasted money in building such a monstrosity? What of the environmental destruction, and the logistical nightmare?

We already have a good road between the Valley and Anchorage. What we need is a working commuter rail asap. The commuter vans are a good idea, but not good enough. The commuter rail will save fuel.

Alaska became an national joke for its proposed pork barrel Bridge To Nowhere for good reason! "