Alaska governor backs new 50-mile road north from Juneau

[Kniwt]

The Anchorage Daily News reports:
http://www.adn.com/2014/03/06/3361669/state-makes-case-to-lawmakers.html

Two costly, challenging and controversial road projects are being pushed this year by the Parnell administration, and on Thursday all sides made a quick case before a joint meeting of the House and Senate transportation committees.

Up for consideration: a 200-plus mile road to the Northwestern Alaska Ambler mining district and a nearly 50-mile road up the avalanche-prone coast north of Juneau.

... The Juneau project wouldn't connect the isolated capital city to the road system but rather would end a few miles short at a proposed new ferry terminal on the Chilkoot Inlet just past the Katzehin River.

[richllewis]

From my reading, the extension of the Glacier Hwy project has been on the drawing board for quite a while. I guess the time to build the road has finally arrived. The last thing I heard they were reconstituting the environmental impact statements and the DOTPF intend to have some public meetings on said statement. This project went through the Courts and was delayed quite a few years due to environmental objections. From what I heard when the funding and the Environmental Impact statements are ready and the State and the Feds issues their revised ROD, they will be ready to go. I think, though it is odd, that they stop at a ferry site instead of completing the road all the way to Skagway. That may be the next step.

[oscar]

The last thing I heard they were reconstituting the environmental impact statements and the DOTPF intend to have some public meetings on said statement. This project went through the Courts and was delayed quite a few years due to environmental objections. From what I heard when the funding and the Environmental Impact statements are ready and the State and the Feds issues their revised ROD, they will be ready to go.

Of course, the revised ROD will be challenged in court, too.  I wonder whether the relevant Federal courts will allow any significant Glacier Highway extension.  (A short three-mile extension opened last year, but IIRC it was only to provide road access to a mine, rather than as a first step to a longer extension.)

I think, though it is odd, that they stop at a ferry site instead of completing the road all the way to Skagway. That may be the next step.

Nope.  Skagway created a park south of town in the path of any road between Juneau and Skagway, specifically to block such a road.

Another reason for extending the Glacier Highway only to a new ferry crossing, rather than the rest of the way to Skagway (or perhaps via a bridge to Haines), is that Skagway and Haines are both gateways to Juneau, and either would yell and scream about a highway connection preferring the other community.  The highway extension as proposed would benefit both communities about equally, through shorter and more frequent ferry crossings to Juneau.

[Duke87]

Nope.  Skagway created a park south of town in the path of any road between Juneau and Skagway, specifically to block such a road.

I understand that the rules say you're not allowed to take parkland for public works without replacing it, but I fail to see how this is a real obstacle aside from it creating an excuse for litigation. If you need to take 10 acres of blank uninhabited terrain that Skagway has randomly declared to be a park to build a road, surely 10 other blank uninhabited acres could be found somewhere nearby that would serve as a suitable replacement.

[oscar]

Nope.  Skagway created a park south of town in the path of any road between Juneau and Skagway, specifically to block such a road.

I understand that the rules say you're not allowed to take parkland for public works without replacing it, but I fail to see how this is a real obstacle aside from it creating an excuse for litigation. If you need to take 10 acres of blank uninhabited terrain that Skagway has randomly declared to be a park to build a road, surely 10 other blank uninhabited acres could be found somewhere nearby that would serve as a suitable replacement.

Actually, as I understand it (not with a lot of authority here, since my former legal practice never got into this field), you can't use parkland for Federally-supported road construction at all, unless there's no "feasible and prudent" alternative to using the land.  Mitigation, such as replacing used parkland, comes into play only if using parkland can't be reasonably avoided.  The existing auto ferry around the park, as is or with improvements, arguably is a "feasible and prudent" alternative to punching a road through the park.

[Stephane Dumas]

Too bad then some other alternatives like a highway east from Juneau to the BC border is out of the question as well....

[oscar]

Too bad then some other alternatives like a highway east from Juneau to the BC border is out of the question as well....

Aside from the mountains and glaciers, the BC provincial government has been un-receptive to any new proposed road connections to the SE Alaska panhandle (including one following the Stikine River through the mountains), especially ones that might create competition for the deep-water port at Stewart BC.

[cpzilliacus]

Nope.  Skagway created a park south of town in the path of any road between Juneau and Skagway, specifically to block such a road.

I understand that the rules say you're not allowed to take parkland for public works without replacing it, but I fail to see how this is a real obstacle aside from it creating an excuse for litigation. If you need to take 10 acres of blank uninhabited terrain that Skagway has randomly declared to be a park to build a road, surely 10 other blank uninhabited acres could be found somewhere nearby that would serve as a suitable replacement.

Actually, as I understand it (not with a lot of authority here, since my former legal practice never got into this field), you can't use parkland for Federally-supported road construction at all, unless there's no "feasible and prudent" alternative to using the land.  Mitigation, such as replacing used parkland, comes into play only if using parkland can't be reasonably avoided.  The existing auto ferry around the park, as is or with improvements, arguably is a "feasible and prudent" alternative to punching a road through the park.

Oscar, you are correct. 

Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (now codified at 23 U.S.C. 138 but still invariably referred to as Section 4(f)) reads in part (emphasis added):

§138. Preservation of parklands

(a) Declaration of Policy.–It is declared to be the national policy that special effort should be made to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. The Secretary of Transportation shall cooperate and consult with the Secretaries of the Interior, Housing and Urban Development, and Agriculture, and with the States in developing transportation plans and programs that include measures to maintain or enhance the natural beauty of the lands traversed. After the effective date of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968, the Secretary shall not approve any program or project (other than any project for a park road or parkway under section 204 of this title) which requires the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance as determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction thereof, or any land from an historic site of national, State, or local significance as so determined by such officials unless (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and (2) such program includes all possible planning to minimize harm to such park, recreational area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from such use. In carrying out the national policy declared in this section the Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior and appropriate State and local officials, is authorized to conduct studies as to the most feasible Federal-aid routes for the movement of motor vehicular traffic through or around national parks so as to best serve the needs of the traveling public while preserving the natural beauty of these areas.

[richllewis]

The funding bill that includes funding for the extension of the Glacier Highway north of Juneau is winding its way through the Alaska Legislature. There are some "Environmental Wackos" that seem to think that the State is wasting money on project that seem unworkable. They also put the Road to Tanana under this category as well as road access to the Ambler Mining area in Northern Alaska and the Knik Arm Bridge they are trying to get ready to build to link both sides of the port of Anchorage. The funding bill has to go to the house in the Alaska legislature before passage.

[richllewis]

This article from the Juneau Empire talks about the Engineer who was going to the FHWA. But inside the article are some facts that was not in the previous Anchorage Daily News article.

During his presentation, Vigue said building the road would let more than 1,300 cars per day travel between Haines and Juneau. Now, only 71 cars per day can use that route, a figure determined by ferry service.

If the road were built, the long ferry ride from Haines to Juneau would be replaced by a short three-mile hop across Lynn Canal.

"The current Lynn Canal transportation system is the largest bottleneck in the state,"  Vigue read from a presentation slide. "It deserves a better and more efficient alternative."

Jeff Ottesen, program development director for the DOT, told lawmakers the road makes economic sense – despite a price tag estimated at around $500 million – because of the high cost of providing ferry service in the area. Over the next 50 years, the cost of building and operating one mainline ferry – after subtracting revenue gained from ferry riders – is about $1.42 billion, Ottesen told the committee.

The marine highway system takes up about half of the department's budget despite transporting fewer than 1 percent of those commuting through the state, he added.

"When Gov. Bill Egan initiated the ferry system in 1962, it was never meant to provide a permanent solution to transportation in Southeast Alaska,"  said Sandy Williams of Citizens Pro Road.

But the road is hardly a slam dunk as both public opposition and legal challenges aim to stop the project.

"I'd much rather spend a half-billion dollars – and half-billion is a very generous cost estimate – on repairing infrastructure we already have, or harbors or roads where there's more of an obvious demand and benefit,"  said Rep. Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, D-Sitka.

The City and Borough of Juneau offered its support for the project in a letter to the committee, but the Haines Borough sent a letter opposing the project.

Haines prefers the road be built on the west side of Lynn Canal to avoid the dangers of numerous avalanche zones that line the proposed route.

One of the project's biggest opponents, the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, called the project a "flawed and destructive "˜Road to Nowhere'"  in a letter sent to the committee. SEACC is the organization that helped delay the project eight years ago.

In 2006, a SEACC-backed lawsuit successfully halted the project. The state appealed the initial ruling, but the appeal was denied in 2011. The state then began working to satisfy the judge's concerns about the state's work, and that work is expected to conclude this year.

If the state gets a green light from the courts and federal approval by mid to late August, construction could begin as soon as this September. The Alaska Department of Transportation is expecting about six years of construction, Vigue told the Empire previously.

[oscar]

This article from the Juneau Empire talks about the Engineer who was going to the FHWA. But inside the article are some facts that was not in the previous Anchorage Daily News article.

The City and Borough of Juneau offered its support for the project in a letter to the committee, but the Haines Borough sent a letter opposing the project.

Haines prefers the road be built on the west side of Lynn Canal to avoid the dangers of numerous avalanche zones that line the proposed route.

Haines' proposal would also make Haines the best gateway to Juneau, and give it a huge competitive advantage over Skagway, by a short shuttle ferry to Haines but a much longer one (if any) to Skagway.  I wouldn't be surprised if that motivation, rather than avalanche risks along the east shore of Lynn Canal (not to be dismissed, but ADOT&PF thinks they're manageable), is what's driving Haines' position.

[richllewis]

Here is what the local legislator that is from Juneau had to say about the new highway from Juneau as recorded by the Juneau Empire newspaper. You will find this at:

http://juneauempire.com/local/2014-04-25/35m-road-sen-egan-shares-highlights#.U1ov6qLg9gs

And, of course, the road out of Juneau was funded at $35 million. Or, as Egan calls it, "the road into Juneau."  

[richllewis]

Something else related. The ferry dock in Skagway is sinking into the inlet. There was some money for this dock. But the project will be fast tracked.

[oscar]

Alaska DOT&PF has already canceled ferry sailings to Skagway for the next two weeks, while it figures out what went wrong, how it might be fixed, and any options for temporary restoration of ferry service to Skagway while the ferry dock is fixed.  See http://www.ferryalaska.com/ for that and any additional announcements.

Ferry service through the Inside Passage will continue, but for now the northern terminus will be in Haines.  Haines is only about 15 miles southwest of Skagway as the crow flies, but the overland road connection between the two communities is over 350 miles, mostly in Canada (both British Columbia and Yukon territory).

[Kniwt]

With a change in the Alaska governor's mansion, the Juneau Access Project is apparently dead for now. KTOO reports:
http://www.ktoo.org/2014/12/27/walker-halts-progress-juneau-access-5-megaprojects/

Gov. Bill Walker issued an administrative order Friday (December 26) halting new funding and new contractual obligations for the Juneau Access Road, Ambler Road, Susitna-Watana Dam, Kodiak Launch Complex, Knik Arm Crossing and the Alaska Standalone Pipeline Project.

And the Juneau Empire reports:
http://juneauempire.com/state/2014-12-28/gov-walker-halts-megaprojects

Jeremy Woodrow, spokesman for the Alaska Department of Transportation, said money has already been allocated to complete the environmental survey phase of the Juneau Access project. "With Juneau Access, the department will continue to move forward with the environmental process,"  he said.

That process is expected to end sometime in 2015 when the state publishes the final environmental impact statement for the Juneau Access Project and submits it to the Federal Highway Administration for approval.