Work in progress

MAT-SU -- It's a project that has been talked about, planned, envisioned and studied by every generation of Alaskans alive today, even predating statehood. More than a dream, the Knik Arm Crossing has become, to some, a potential economic savior that could provide access to now-floundering communities along the Alaska road system and open the doors for increased resource development. And with the recent creation of a state body tasked with designing, constructing and operating a toll bridge spanning the Knik Arm, some say the project is as good as built.

But there's a lot of work that must be done before the project can be built -- if it's deemed feasible.

A group on a mission

Last week, Gov. Frank Murkowski stood on the shores of the Port of Anchorage and signed into law a bill that will create the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority, a seven-member board of directors supported by an executive director and associated staff.

The new board, according to a fiscal note passed with Senate Bill 213, the bill that creates the Knik Arm Authority, will have an annual budget of about $500,000 and three full-time staff. It will be authorized to receive federal funds and issue revenue bonds to finance bridge construction. The project, a bridge and railway linking the Port of Anchorage to Port MacKenzie, is roughly estimated to range between $1.3 and $1.8 billion.

The bill Murkowski signed essentially moves the Knik Arm Crossing project off the shelf and firmly on the table. John McKinnon, deputy commissioner of the Alaska Department of Transportation said the creation of the authority demonstrates a commitment to getting the bridge built.

"One of the reasons for planning it as a separate entity is to have them focus on getting this project built," McKinnon said. He said if the authority moves quickly, the bridge may be well into construction in the next five years.

The Knik Arm Authority will take the lead on getting the bridge built, through overseeing the planning, the environmental impact assessment, the project design and construction and the hiring of executive staff. What's more, McKinnon said, the group has the ability to issue revenue bonds and arrange financing to bring the project to completion.

Who needs a bridge?

Although a lot of talking has been done on both sides of the inlet about a Knik Arm Crossing, many Valley residents agree, it's a project that would likely help Anchorage more than the Valley. The Knik Arm Crossing has been a topic of discussion at numerous community councils within Anchorage, and it's supported by both current Anchorage Mayor George Weurch and Mayor-elect Mike Begich. Additionally, Anchorage Ted Stevens International Airport is running out of room and a recent plan completed recommends using land in the Point MacKenzie area to relocate the airport in the next two decades -- if a bridge is built.

Mat-Su Borough Port Director Marc Van Dongen said there were numerous ways both the borough and Anchorage could benefit from the project.

"It would facilitate speeding up the economic development in the port district," Van Dongen said. "It would provide and enable us to have businesses locate there, which would provide jobs for borough and Anchorage residents."

If that happens, Van Dongen said, there will likely be a few ripple effects across the Valley. The core area, he said, may shift more toward Big Lake and away from the borough's eastern side, as the three roads leading to the port -- Knik-Goose Bay Road, Burma Road and the new extension that would meet the Parks Highway near Willow -- are all in that area of the borough.

There are 8,000 acres in the port district, Van Dongen said. That land is set aside for industrial and business development, he said, but there are hundreds of acres around the district that could be developed into residential housing. In addition, there's plenty of room for the airport to expand -- up to 15 square miles, depending on how much private land is used. Placing the airport at the port would place it 12 miles from Anchorage. Some may call that distance prohibitive, but Van Dongen said he lived in Denver, Colo., when the decision was made to move the airport to a new location more than 20 miles outside the city. Not only did the city expand to the airport's new boundaries, the extra space has allowed the airport to become one of the nation's busiest airports.

But those in communities likely to see growth as a result of the construction and the feelings about the bridge are mixed.

Ted Smith, chairman of the Willow Community Council, said the council recently voted on a move to develop a comprehensive plan to anticipate growth from the project, which could put them less than a half-hour's drive from downtown Anchorage. The council voted against working on a comprehensive plan but Smith said he's still looking at the issue, as he believes the bridge could significantly affect the growth of the community.

"I think it would increase the density of the population," Smith said. "A lot of people who come up for a weekend, if the bridge is there, would be able to build a home and live here. There'd be more of a demand for home services."

Smith said he favors moving the community of Willow toward incorporation so they have the ability to plan for the growth the bridge may bring, but that's not an idea favored by many in the community.

"I hope people can be realistic about this," Smith said. "One of the major complaints is 'We don't want the damn borough telling us what to do.'"

Although Houston city mayor Dale Adams said he wrote a letter to the state supporting a bridge -- if it wasn't a toll bridge -- he said he didn't see a lot of benefits for his city.

"The only thing that bridge is going to do is give Anchorage a place to grow. They should pay for it," Adams said, laughing. "I just can't see any real big benefit where it's going to help us."

Adams said he believes the trek through Anchorage's downtown for those using the bridge complicates the project. He and others he knows avoid driving through Anchorage's downtown because of the congestion, numerous lights and dearth of parking spaces.

"I've been to town five times already this week," Adams said, "never downtown."

Will the dream become a reality this time?

Already, the possibility of a Knik Arm Crossing seems to loom closer on the horizon. Is it any more likely to be built now? Some say the stars, economy and need for the project have aligned to make this the best possible time to move forward.

"Thirty years ago," McKinnon said, "growth in Anchorage was not what it is today. That's one of the things driving it."

McKinnon explained that, just in the past decade, Anchorage has used up most of the developable land available for both industrial and residential development in the bowl area. But across the Knik Arm lie hundreds of developable acres which, with easy access provided by a bridge, could be prime property for either industry. McKinnon added that the funding for the project seems ripe, with Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young both in seats that bode well for transportation projects.

For the past 30 years, Dennis Nottingham of engineering and design firm Peratrovich, Nottingham and Drage has been talking about the project at several levels of the community. He said the creation of the Knik Arm Authority doesn't provide a guarantee, but it brings the project back for serious consideration, which he sees as good.

"It's a step toward fruition. Before, it's always been looked at as, well, sort of a joke," Nottingham said. "Sure, long-range plans are a joke -- until they become real."

Nottingham said the project hasn't changed much over 30 years of discussions. One thing has, he said -- the commitment by those designing it to route around the military bases and not push through them.

"A complete disregard for the military has been a problem in the past," Nottingham said.

Whether it's increased attention to the need for a strong military or to the need to adhere to homeland security measures, current plans don't involve carving up military land.

Part of the reason there's been little change in the project over the past three decades could be that it's a simple design. That's despite the fact that it would be nearly three miles long and built in a seismically active area across an inlet that is home to some of the most widely varying tides in the world.

"It's a relatively simple project," Nottingham said. "I don't look at it as much of a challenge. We did it 30 years ago -- it's no big deal."

Nottingham said the Yukon River bridge, which has spans of 410 feet, is built similarly to how the Knik Arm bridge would be constructed. It can handle ice and tides with no problem, he said. Nottingham designed that bridge more than 30 years ago when he was working for the state and said it's still considered a technologically advanced design. Because of the potential for seismic activity, he said, the Knik Arm bridge would have to be made as light as possible -- all-steel construction. The steel is a boon, he said, as it would reduce the overall project cost.

Cost is an issue where Nottingham's numbers vary from state projections. Give him $400 million, Nottingham said, and he'd have the bridge built in five years. That's less than one-third the low-ball estimate from the state.

Nottingham's estimate includes a four-lane roadway, but not a railway. That, he said, would likely double the project cost -- still leaving it about $1 billion less than state estimates. Why the difference? Nottingham said his costs cover the basics -- not a lot of extraneous paperwork and research. Take the environmental impact assessment for example. The state received $5 million to start the EIS, and another $30 million to complete it and work on the project design. Nottingham said the job can be done for $5 million; the rest simply gives researchers a way to find things that would dead-end the project.

Although creating the Knik Arm Authority means a group of people will be focused on making the bridge become a reality, both McKinnon and Nottingham said the oft-discussed project could find its way back to the shelf after all.

"It may be that it's just not technically feasible," McKinnon said.

Technical feasibility isn't the issue for Nottingham, but the political and social climate is.

"I just feel right now we're being a little more realistic than in the past," Nottingham said. "There's a time for everything. Now we'll just check it out again and see if this is the time."