Anchorage Knik Arm Bridge lawsuit draws attention from Valley officials

WASILLA — Just as the controversial “Bridge to Nowhere” seemed to be going somewhere, a Municipality of Anchorage lawsuit could impact the project already decades in the making.

When complete, the Knik Arm Bridge would connect the state’s two largest population centers — the Mat-Su Borough and Anchorage — at their ports. While Anchorage has no beef with the bridge, it does with the U.S. Department of Transportation’s plan to connect motorists to the bridge. In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court, the city seeks to block the approved access route to the bridge at the Port of Anchorage.

The planned access road along the south shore of Cook Inlet at the port is home to some relatively new developments that, if hampered by the access route, would adversely affected the city and residents across the state, the lawsuit says.

“It’s not the bridge itself, it’s the access road on the south shore,” said Bob Owens, assistant municipal attorney for Anchorage who is working on the case. “There are other routes it could go or other ways it could be built that would have less impact.”

After the federal government gave the access route a green light in December, the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority (KABATA) began seeking private financing for the project, said Mat-Su Borough Mayor Larry DeVilbiss. Anchorage’s lawsuit could hold up securing that financing and impact the borough, which is developing economic plans around the Port MacKenzie area.

“I was surprised to learn about that suit,” DeVilbiss said. “It brings up an alignment issue I was not aware of. I would imagine this is a step in the process of making it better. … Obviously, I will be talking with (Anchorage) Mayor (Dan) Sullivan to see what the issues are and if there is some way we can mitigate them.”

Although the lawsuit deals with access on the Anchorage end of the bridge, the Valley needs to keep a close eye on it, said Wasilla Mayor Verne Rupright. He was also surprised by the lawsuit and said it has the potential to affect plans for Wasilla and the Mat-Su if it holds up the project.

“I was shocked when I saw the Municipality of Anchorage came up with that suit,” said Rupright, who’s also a lawyer. “Finally, finally, the project could go forward after four or five decades, and now it’s time to do this? Now the city of Anchorage wants to block it?”

If plans for the bridge continue to be delayed, “it could impact the Mat-Su’s growth development and economic development, but I think it will also impact Anchorage,” Rupright said. “The lower Mat-Su Valley is the fastest growing area of the state, and it needs to be able to connect directly to the largest city in the state.”

He also questions the timing of the lawsuit when proposed access plans have been known for quite some time.

“That planned access right of way has been on the drawing board for years, and all of the sudden now it’s an issue for them?” he said.

Although Anchorage has known the chosen access could be approved, it always made its case to federal authorities that it would create a hardship for the city, Owens said. Now, the only recourse Anchorage had was legal.

The area that would have to make way for the access “is part of the port. The port built those facilities, it’s the city’s facility, and it’s an area that’s used primarily by barges,” he said. “Those are the vessels that service rural Alaska.”

Because of that, interruption of that service “can indirectly impact all Alaskans who rely on that port for the transshipment of goods,” the lawsuit says. “Connector road construction under the selected alternative will irreparably injure the port’s vital role in the regional economy.”

In addition, much of the development of that area of the port is fairly recent, taking place from about 2003 to 2007, and represents a significant financial investment, Owens said.

Basically, what the city wants is a reconsideration of the choice of routes, Owens said. “There are several. In the end, they chose this one and announced their decision. The time for challenging that final decision was the day we filed the suit.”

The lawsuit also contends the Federal Highway Administration and Department of Transportation failed to adequately vet other access alternatives.

“Despite myriad requests to do so, defendants did not take a hard look at the salient impacts of their proposed Anchorage Access Corridor on the Port of Anchorage,” it says.

In a statement about the lawsuit, KABATA Chairman Michael Foster said his organization is “confident in the record of decision that was issued by the Federal Highway Administration. KABATA is moving forward with right of way acquisition, permitting and procurement activities.”

On the Mat-Su side of the project, DeVilbiss said the borough will keep close track of the action, and both mayors said they could weigh in if they believe it could affect Valley municipalities.

Contact Greg Johnson at greg.johnson@frontiersman.com or 352-2269.