The recent flurry of editorial comments related to “The Road” are reminders this issue remains a hot-button topic in Juneau. The arguments calling for road construction and suggesting that a road is “fiscally responsible” invite further analysis.
If funding, politics and harm to our fisheries and other natural resources didn’t matter, we probably could build the Juneau road — the one DOT calls “the Katzehin Road and ferry terminal.” But all of these factors matter in Alaska.
We Alaskans are living in perilous fiscal times. Fiscal constraints require measured and responsible appropriations of our limited funds. The governor’s transition teams and results of the statewide fiscal conference held in Fairbanks last summer addressing Alaska’s massive state government shortfalls all reached the same basic conclusion: we do not have the luxury of embarking on expensive projects that yield little overall economic return.
The state of Alaska is in a fiscal crisis and it should be obvious we cannot afford to fund a Juneau road extension or other proposed megaprojects around the state. We’ll be lucky to simply maintain our existing transportation network and public facilities given the state’s dire financial circumstances. Focusing our attention and limited funding on smaller, local projects will help assure not only the maintenance of existing infrastructure, but will also provide much needed jobs in Juneau and other communities.
In Juneau, affordable projects that will yield significant transportation improvements include reconstruction of the Yandukin intersection on Egan Drive, redesign and improvements to Stephen Richards Drive, upgrades and improvement to Industrial Boulevard and the reconstruction of Egan Drive from the Douglas Bridge to Merchants wharf. These projects will significantly improve traffic flow, result in safety improvements and would be used every day by thousands of Juneau residents. The cost for these projects is considerable — in the range of $65 million dollars. But that’s a price our state can afford and we should all support.
It’s important for road boosters to recognize that while large chunks of federal funds have been “authorized” for the Katzehin road, there are no significant funds in DOT’s current budget for the road.
Why is that?
That’s because there is a big budgetary difference between “authorization” and an actual “appropriation” for a project. Typically, rather than fully funding projects to be built, the Alaska Legislature first “authorizes” the use of federal funds for a variety of projects so DOT has some flexibility. If a particular project is delayed, the department can shift the funds to another project before the next legislative session. The authorization designation is sort of like a legislative wish list — one that has meaning but isn’t the definitive determination some supporters believe.
What really matters is the Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan, or STIP, which is essentially DOT’s fiscally constrained master budget. In the world of authorized project possibilities, of which the Juneau road extension is but one, the STIP designates which projects will be funded by the Department. At present, a mere $7 million is budgeted in the STIP for the “Katzehin Road and ferry terminal.” Significantly, the $7 million is not for actual construction of a road, just more bureaucratic studies and preliminary design work.
The state could put the Juneau road extension back in the STIP, but that would require spending a huge percentage of the state’s total transportation budget on an isolated, partial driveway in Southeast Alaska. Essentially, building the partial road would soak up the entire budget for new capital projects in Southeast Alaska for roughly a decade. Who in Kenai, Anchorage, Fairbanks, Bethel, Sitka or Ketchikan is ready to give up their long-awaited road project so Juneau can have a longer dead-end road?
And no savvy political leader in Alaska will approve construction of the road when the project, using the department’s economic data, was found to have significant negative net benefits to the state. DOT’s analysis showed a benefit/cost ratio came to 0.28. Standard engineering guidelines and economic common sense recommend against proceeding with a project that has a ratio of less than 1.
Besides the enormous difficulty in allocating the capital costs for the road, maintenance of the proposed road is more expensive than the existing ferry operations in Lynn Canal. According to DOT data, the road will increase the state’s operating budget by at least $2.7 million per year compared to ferry service, and perhaps by over $5 million annually.
There doesn’t appear to be genuine, widespread support in the Alaska Legislature to deflect significant amounts of decreasing revenue into a truncated road in Southeast Alaska. The economics work against the road. So do the politics of our state.
What is required is a sober look at the realistic transportation and infrastructure challenges we face. Juneau residents need to work closely and cooperatively with our neighbors in the Lynn Canal corridor and around Southeast to identify transportation projects that are ready to build, affordable and included on the STIP.
If all it took were wishful thinking and expressions of support, the road would have been built years ago. It’s time to stop engaging in magical thinking and take care of our existing infrastructure. We need to halt planning for expensive projects we cannot afford and that will never be built.
• Empire Readers’ Council editorials are written by members Joe Geldhof, Abby Lowell, Tom Rutecki, Lisa Weissler and Alex Wertheimer.
