Knik Arm Bridge: Proponents say it’s still viable

Andrew Niemiec, executive director, and Kevin Hemenway, chief financial officer, of the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority, stopped by the office this week to talk about the possible construction of the bridge.

When told that many people think that deal is dead in the water, they started handing out material and a talked about how it really still lives and has a future.

Their main point is that there are two international companies — one French and one Australian — that are willing to build the bridge on their dime if all the hurdles are removed regarding permitting and sundry government financial loans, grants and other sources of money are lined up and secured.

Then the bidding would start.

The winner would then oversee the construction that Hemenway said could be completed in three construction seasons, depending on permits. He estimates the construction would created 5,000 jobs. There are all kinds of numbers the two shared that they say makes the bridge a viable concern: Alaskans would save $94 million in the first full year of operation because of less miles driven and less time spent driving. That’s based on $4 per gallon for gasoline and includes $5 for a one-way trip across the Inlet. Even at $2.55 per gallon, they say the savings would be $82 million with $42 million saved in vehicle operating costs alone.

They also say economists have told them that in the first 23 years of operation, the bridge will create $18 billion in economic development. If correct, that’s $782 million a year, about the estimated cost of the bridge — according to Niemiec and Hemenway — which has gone up from its original $600 million price tag. Some think $700 million won’t get it done, but that’s what the two international companies have to figure out. They’re going to get their money back on the tolls, so they can’t make the price to drive across the bridge so expensive nobody will want to use it.

There are reasons that the bridge should be built. Even if you live in Sutton or Palmer, the traffic on the Glenn should show some decrease.

If you live in the Knik-Point MacKenzie area — possibly the fastest growing part of the borough — it will cut your commute time and money considerably. On the other hand, you will be runover by people leaving Anchorage and living next door.

That’s a real concern for some people who worry that the bridge will make Knik the place to be and Anchorage will become the quaint, desolate suburb to the south, especially when Goose Bay, Alaska becomes the state capital.

The bridge would also be good for another reason: More than one way to get to or leave Anchorage. It’s not at all unusual for traffic to be closed on the Glenn for an hour or more after accidents or criminal activity. If people knew ahead of time, they would drive the extra miles rather than sit in an idling car waiting for that one lane to finally open up.

One reason not to build it: The character of the west end of the Valley would change. But let’s face it, that horse has already left the barn. Houston, Willow, Trapper Creek and Talkeetna? You would be next.