I moved to Alaska in August 2004. I remember hearing something about a bridge across Knik Arm not long after arriving. It’s been 19 years since I moved to Alaska and, shockingly, there is still just water between Downtown Anchorage and Point MacKenzie.
The Alaska Department of Transportation initiated the Knik Arm Crossing Project in 2003 after legislation was passed that created the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority (KABATA). A lot of work was done between its creation and 2016, when then-Governor Bill Walker axed the project along with the Juneau Access Road and the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project.
In February 2019, Governor Mike Dunleavy (R – Alaska) rescinded the Walker administrative order that stopped the Knik Arm Crossing Project. The Dunleavy administration then commissioned a report, “Knik Arm Crossing Project: Analysis for Moving Forward to Financing and Construction.” The report was completed by Kevin Hemenway, the former CFO for the project. Unfortunately, the Covid pandemic prevented any new work from happening.
In April 2022, Transportation Commissioner Ryan Anderson wrote a letter in which he stated “Alaska is entering an exciting era for transportation.” Anderson referenced a number of projects that DOT is working on, including a reexamination of the Knik Arm Crossing. The letter concludes:
Over the next year, DOT&PF will be performing due diligence, examining the merits of a strengthened Anchorage Mat-Su connection, either by expanding the Glenn Highway, or creating a new link, such as the Knik Arm Crossing, These efforts are critical to address highway safety, population growth, economic development, connectivity for people, freight and goods, and to ensure our Alaskan transportation system is resilient as we move forward into the future.
Alaska is stuck in neutral. We used to revel in big undertakings, like building the pipeline or the Parks Highway – which were both completed in the 1970s. A large portion of the permitting and right-of-way for the Knik Arm bridge has already been done. In 2019, the estimated cost of the project was just under $1 billion. That number has surely gone up, but with the amount of federal money available and other financing options the state has, this project should be a top priority for state leaders.
There are several reasons why the bridge should be built, the main one being housing. If the bridge is built, a housing boom would ensue on the Mat-Su side. Anchorage is facing a major housing crisis, mostly because of the barriers to new construction. This housing crisis has been decades in the making. While the Assembly has taken some steps to improve the housing situation in Anchorage, they have failed to seriously address the problem. But home building is booming in the Mat-Su. In fact, over half of new housing built in the state last year was in the Mat-Su. And the average price of a home in the Mat-Su is $374,000, compared to $450,000 in Anchorage.
If the bridge is built, the housing supply will shoot up. Tens of thousands of Anchorage residents will likely move to the other side. This will have a two prong effect. It will increase the housing supply in Anchorage and lower housing costs and rents.
The bridge would also improve transportation and safety. Currently, the only way out of Anchorage north is the Glenn Highway. The bridge would not only be another corridor out of Anchorage, but would would alleviate traffic on the Glenn. We all remember the traffic nightmare out of Anchorage when the 2018 earthquake hit and when trucks collided with an overpass on the Glenn in 2018 and 2022.
And think of the economic impact the bridge would create. In addition to all the construction jobs, the housing that would be built on the Mat-Su side would create an economic boom as new businesses open.
The state has already spent $100 million on the project. Federal money would cover a significant portion of the construction. The state has the ability to bond or borrow the rest. It’s time we start building things again. When Bill Walker ran for governor in 2010, he said “We used to build things, now we just study things.”
It’s too bad Walker did not take his own advice, and instead used the power of his office to axe projects like the Knik Arm bridge and Juneau Access Road. The Dunleavy administration is currently resurrecting the project. They should take 2010 Bill Walker’s advice.
I mean, I’m sure in his heart of hearts, Walker would have wanted to build the Knik Arm Bridge when he was Governor, but we simply did not have the money. I know that is a tired excuse, but he axed those mega-projects at the dawn of our current fiscal crisis when the price of oil crashed and we were facing down multi-billion dollar deficits.
Anchorage will never allow the bridge to happen. To many property tax payers will move across to the MatSu Borough. Anchorage will do every thing they can to prevent that exodus of cash.
Agree. There should also be a bridge jumping across to Fire Island to the northwest tip of the Kenai peninsula. For the same reasons.
If you don’t build bridge access how effective will this be? Talk about a traffic jam during commuting hours, imagine all those commuters attempting to arrive and depart Anchorage using the Ship Creek Overpass. A direct interchange at with the Glenn at Eagle River or Eklutna makes more sense. As to providing an alternate route following an earthquake this bridge will not be earthquake proof so it will be just as subject to engineer analysis as any other bridge after the next “big one”. All those moving across Knik Arm will take their property tax payments with them. How will… Read more »
Conservatives will always find a reason not to push forwards. You can’t actually calculate the risks or rewards, you’re just scared of change.
Yes, you can calculate and estimate risks and rewards. When you use that approach you maximize your chances of success. Otherwise all you have is hope, and hope is not a reliable plan of action. This bridge is a classic example of relying on hope more than rational thinking.
No, I said “you” cannot. You are not on any planning committee. When your wrote your opinion you were not basing it from rational thinking, it was hesitation based on fear. Zero facts involved. It doesn’t matter how many people dislike my hostility, I told you the truth.
Baloney. That is a baseless comment. Probably more conservatives than non conservatives have clamored for a bridge. I am one. I commuted from the valley foe years. I would be thrilled foe that bridge to be built but it will cost a boatload.
I am not expert on the project, but I understood the design also has an overpass connection to Gambell/Ingra, so no problem with the C Street overpass. As for economies and tax bases of Palmer, Wasilla and Anchorage, change happens, people adjust. No one has a right to stop progress. Seriously doubt everyone is just going to move from Palmer, Wasilla to Pt. Mac, just because there is now a bridge. We currently have a lack of housing inventory because higher interest rates means that no one can afford to sell their home. Low interest rates have created an artificial… Read more »
To make these homes at all affordable they will have to be built on lots provided utility infrastructure including roads, water, sewage collection and storm water drainage. Individual wells and septic systems take a lot of space. Also , there is no way you can avoid downtown Anchorage traffic congestion unless you move the bridge much further up the arm to allow high speed interchange with the Glenn. I don’t fear progress. I do however fear impractical expensive folly.
The reality is that the bridge will not affect current traffic. ImThe three phase project will connect to Willow. The increased land availability will begin to be built out and that population will use the bridge.
There are myriads of commuters from KGB, Big Lake, Houston that currently commute to Anchorage. That traffic currently travels through Wasilla on the Parks to the Glenn. Many of those computers would likely use the bridge. But development would also occur out toward Willow.
Not accurate. They would hve to drive an additional 20 or so miles on top of the 40 they already commute. Go check out the routes.
You’re starting in Wasilla. Elizabeth was talking about traffic in Big Lake, KGB, and Houston–all traffic that has to currently drive up and over to Wasilla and then back down (and wouldn’t have to go through Wasilla at all, if the Knik Arm Bridge was built). Wasilla commuters gain a mile to their commute (one mile!), not 20, and no matter what route they take, they’d see a lot less traffic.
Another escape route for Anchorage in the event of a natural disaster.
More housing (Anchorage complains about the lack of housing land).
Less traffic (split the values, or close). Especially if you live on KGB or work on base.
The Knik Arm Crossing is often sold on the misconception that it would speed up commutes to the Valley, but that’s not accurate (unless you’re talking about the Big Lake area, maybe). Like it or not, the current highway is by far the most efficient route to connect Southcentral Alaska’s major population centers. The Knik Arm Crossing would be a ludicrously expensive liability with little benefit to Anchorage and a lot of downsides, from lost property taxes to maintenance to congestion to longer commutes.
yeah but lots of people travel through wasilla to get north and will all the lights they are putting in it is getting really slow. This would help everyone NOT going to Wasilla that travel that road. and there is a lot. also would reduce traffic on the glenn
Good point. To make this a meaningful change to access to the Parks Highway would require the state to build a limited access highway along the current Alaska Railroad ROW for the rail spur to Pt. Mac. Do that and you allow far more efficient access to the Parks Highway from the western edge of Wasilla and to the North. Until that is done, this has the limited impact of creating a bedroom community for Anchorage across the water.
Anex the property on the other side of the Knik Arm
The economy tanked during the Walker Administration. He did all he could to keep things floating while the Legislature sat on their thumbs spending the Congressional Budget Reserve and waiting for oil prices to save them. The Legislature still hasn’t taken steps to stabilize our economy but I am pretty sure to take advantage of the federal Infrastructure funding to help this project along.
It was axed because environmental groups claimed whales couldn’t swim under the bridge.
No sir. Not accurate. There will be Beluga watchers during construction though.
Anchorage should annex the land on the other side of the bridge. It should build the new port there and reserve land for future airport expansion. The tools from the traffic created will help pay for the cost of the bridge. One upside is the port would be built on land with less of a risk of ground failure in an earthquake.
Agree on everything else, but firmly disagree on the point of Anchorage annexing Point Mackenzie; Anchorage has been the most cantankerous about the project, while Mat-Su has largely been supportive. Let Mat-Su reap some reward from this, other than just shorter commute times.
If an earthquake takes out the Glenn Highway, there’s a very good chance the bridge wouldn’t be passable either.
Move Anchorage’s airport to Pt. Mackenzie and use the reclaimed land for development.
Ah absolutely not. Already put 2, 4 lane roads in here on KGB “which needed to be done due to safety reasons down the kgb road” and to Houston. I think we’re good on pop up homes out here. It’s enough if you don’t want to make the drive then you shouldn’t live in alaska. Plus property taxes will most likely go up, and you think oh yea the average is 450k in Anchorage but 320k in the valley welllll guess what, it’ll be more and you gotta pay for a bridge somehow. Also you want an extention to Muldoon… Read more »
Plz don’t drink and text.
It’s not a horrible idea, but here are some thoughts on why it failed, coming from someone who had been involved in the planning and permitting process. (1) We only get so much transportation money from the federal government each year, and while that money could be used to offset the cost, that means the money would not be available for other highway projects. The question is how those other projects rank in importance to the crossing. (2) While the crossing would substantially reduce driving times to areas south of the Parks, it would result in the same travel time… Read more »
Amen. Well stated.
D*mn you and your logic and carefully laid out reasoning!
Let’s get it done. I see this increasing housing prices in Anchorage, not reducing them. This will create new jobs, new homes, new businesses, easier access to Big Lake. Let’s go, cut through the red tape and enough of political delays.
I hear your urgency, but read Sam’s post… we need to look at all the angles so we can make the right choices, otherwise this will be another Mat-Su ice-breaking ferry… or train-station at-the-airport, or ice hockey cum basketball center — but a lot more costly. Biggest thing for me is that toll – I don’t see people wanting to pay that, or it making enough to pay for the bridge.
Where is the electricity for these new homes coming from? Do you want to commute on that bridge during Jan. & Feb. ice fogs. Now, when there is a fatality on the Seward or Glenn, they are closed for five or six hours. What would the wait time be during an ice storm on a bridge in the middle of the Arm.Do you not know of the winds that come off the Matanuska? I am not even going to bring up the cost of maintaining this infrastructure. All of this in a red state that thinks that no one should… Read more »
The potential bridge is a path to no where at least until an infrastructure was developed on the other side which again costs money. Kind of like the railway right-of-way to the port development project that was never completed and never really utilized. If you look at a map of the area in and around Anchorage you see these large segments of land that are undeveloped but are part of Federal Government, some primarily military holdings. Anchorage development in the distant past stimulated in the 70’s? sale/transfer of military land to private owners. Made a few individuals land Barron’s but… Read more »
Amen, brother.
Anchorage is out of room for not only housing, but the Port and the Airport. Build it, and they will come.
Amen. Build it
Move JBER to the other side….
Instead of a bridge, it should be a causeway with turbines to capture the tidal energy.
Not sure if this article could have made a more shallow analysis of this issue.
I agree – read Sam’s post – has lot’s of really good detail. He should write the next column…
Ok guys. Give Jeff a break. He’s a shock jock. Apparently he’s doing a good job because I don’t know if I’ve ever seen this many comments on any piece he’s written. Just kidding. I like Jeff, I think, so give him hell! While I have you attention, can we get the stalker back?
👀
Sounds like socialism to me. Spend taxpayer money so poor people can have affordable housing on the other side of the Knick that would otherwise be unavailable to them. Why can’t they just get jobs that will pay for them to have housing on anchorage?
“ It will increase the housing supply in Anchorage and lower housing costs and rents.”. This is a false statement. It will increase housing supply in the May-Su, robbing Anchorage of values and tax dollars.
Build a navy base at the deep water port and the bridge. Millions of wasted fed dollars went to Nome for port development there.
Except, you know, being a couple thousand miles closer to a major global adversary….