Bridge to nowhere, road to Nome
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Far be it from me to delve into local Alaska politics, but it seems to me that Gov. Sarah Palin's proposal to build a road to Nome, one that would be over 500 miles long, is actually a pretty good one. It would link the distantly remote western part of the state to the more populous north-south corridor running from Fairbanks, which is due east of Nome, and Anchorage, and then to Juneau to the southeast, via the Yukon. Air travel may make far more sense, but a road would open up more of the state to development (oil, gas, minerals). Of course, this latter point assumes that such development would be good not just for the state but for the environment, an assumption that I probably shouldn't make.
(Yes, I just praised Palin. What can I say? I'm trying to be "fair" and "balanced.")
Other than potential environmental devastation -- let's leave that aside for the moment -- the overriding concern is cost. The price tag for the new road would apparently be around $2 billion, or $3-4 million per mile. The last time I checked, that's a lot of money -- all the more so, relatively speaking, with Alaska set to run a $2-3 billion deficit next year.
It may not happen. As a Nome city councilman, Stan Anderson, put it, "[u]ntil the money is actually there it's kind of like a pie in the sky type of thing." But at least it's not, or doesn't appear to be, a bridge to nowhere, even if the money isn't there, even if, as of right now, it's mostly just talk.
Still, it's interesting that Palin is pushing for it, and I wonder about what it says, if anything, about her ambitions and possible future political plans. Specifically, how does this issue -- infrastructure development for the sake of the economic development of the state's natural resources -- play into the possibility of a Palin challenge to Sen. Lisa Murkowski in 2010? Given that Palin's ambitions seem to be national, one way to get to Washington would be to win Murkowski's Senate seat. The early polls have been all over the place, but there's little doubt that Palin would be a formidable challenger. It would seem to make sense, then, for her to use her position as governor not just with an eye to what is good for Alaska but with an eye, and perhaps a much bigger eye, to a 2010 run. Even if a road to Nome never comes to be, just putting it out there as an idea, and a fairly bold one at a time of low oil prices and economic uncertainty/calamity, could end up benefitting her politically.
Far be it from me to delve into local Alaska politics, but it seems to me that Gov. Sarah Palin's proposal to build a road to Nome, one that would be over 500 miles long, is actually a pretty good one. It would link the distantly remote western part of the state to the more populous north-south corridor running from Fairbanks, which is due east of Nome, and Anchorage, and then to Juneau to the southeast, via the Yukon. Air travel may make far more sense, but a road would open up more of the state to development (oil, gas, minerals). Of course, this latter point assumes that such development would be good not just for the state but for the environment, an assumption that I probably shouldn't make.
(Yes, I just praised Palin. What can I say? I'm trying to be "fair" and "balanced.")
Other than potential environmental devastation -- let's leave that aside for the moment -- the overriding concern is cost. The price tag for the new road would apparently be around $2 billion, or $3-4 million per mile. The last time I checked, that's a lot of money -- all the more so, relatively speaking, with Alaska set to run a $2-3 billion deficit next year.
It may not happen. As a Nome city councilman, Stan Anderson, put it, "[u]ntil the money is actually there it's kind of like a pie in the sky type of thing." But at least it's not, or doesn't appear to be, a bridge to nowhere, even if the money isn't there, even if, as of right now, it's mostly just talk.
Still, it's interesting that Palin is pushing for it, and I wonder about what it says, if anything, about her ambitions and possible future political plans. Specifically, how does this issue -- infrastructure development for the sake of the economic development of the state's natural resources -- play into the possibility of a Palin challenge to Sen. Lisa Murkowski in 2010? Given that Palin's ambitions seem to be national, one way to get to Washington would be to win Murkowski's Senate seat. The early polls have been all over the place, but there's little doubt that Palin would be a formidable challenger. It would seem to make sense, then, for her to use her position as governor not just with an eye to what is good for Alaska but with an eye, and perhaps a much bigger eye, to a 2010 run. Even if a road to Nome never comes to be, just putting it out there as an idea, and a fairly bold one at a time of low oil prices and economic uncertainty/calamity, could end up benefitting her politically.
Labels: 2010 elections, Alaska, Lisa Murkowski, Sarah Palin
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
1:00 PM
1 Comments:
Thanks for your thoughts on this topic. I live in Nome and I don't follow your blog, but google-alerts is set for "nome" so your blog popped up.
My thoughts are that it is likely a bad idea. It takes about half an hour of wind on the Seward Peninsula, know for its wind in the winter, to cause drifting snow to close the road. It would take an amazing infrastructure of equipment and equipment bases with heated shops and crews, to keep the road open during the winter.
Another concern is the wreckage to country that could result. Right now money and mining are king and they spare nothing, despite regulations to help protect our environment. Areas around Nome, very important for many species of birds and other creatures would become a gravel pit for gold. The village of Elim is fighting a uranium mine near its important subsistence areas. I know that there would be pressure to destroy this area to help pay for the road.
Another is hunting pressure - game populations are already being decimated around population areas by the use of ATVs - 4-wheelers. Fish and Wildlife can't seem to control this factor. A road opens up the whole area to such destruction.
I used to be somewhat for the idea of a road but I've seen how industry destroys this fragile land - having my eyes opened up more recently to the power of greed and how it bulldozes over the concerns of local people wanting to protect fish and animals.
If I was asked what it might take to get me to support such an idea, I would say train. I don't know if our car-centric mind set can actually entertain such an idea any more, but I think it would be much more efficient to operate if not cheaper to build. It could use less energy than trucks for hauling freight. It could limit access to sensitive environmental areas - wetlands, bird nesting areas, or whatever. It might be safer than having clueless motorists out trying to navigate through the storms.
Thanks for the podium, I'll turn it back over. cheers, Jim
By
Jim, at 12:36 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home