• Overcast, light rain
  • 55°
    Overcast, light rain
  • Comment

Opinion: Measuring 'the road's' value without subsidies

Posted: April 16, 2014 - 12:00am

Welcome back to the great road debate. This time, it’s no longer about keeping the capital in Juneau. That issue has been dormant for more than a decade, leaving supporters of a road to Haines arguing solely on the grounds of long-term economic savings. What they won’t say is whether or not they’d support it without the massive subsidy of federal taxpayer dollars.

Officials at the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities say the Juneau Access project fulfills the agency’s mission of connecting people and communities. That’s part of the function of roads everywhere, but few highways, if any, have been built for that reason alone. The Interstate Highway System, which moves a quarter of all vehicle traffic today, was conceived as a network for rapid military mobilization. Interstates have become the primary commuter routes between suburbs and cities as well as a main artery for everyday commerce.

The Juneau Access highway won’t serve any of those functions. Even so, AKDOTPF estimates that almost 1,500 vehicles a day could use the road. Who are these likely users?

I can’t imagine many people will routinely travel from Haines or Skagway just to shop at Costco, Walmart or Fred Meyer. Nor do I think there’ll be a significant increase in Juneauites traveling all the way to Whitehorse, Fairbanks or Anchorage. It’s not going to become the Lynn Canal commuter corridor. Trucking won’t replace tugs and barges for delivering essential goods and general merchandise to Juneau. And I wouldn’t expect a flood of tourist-driven RVs either.

So aside from some Kensington Mine workers who may drive a quarter of the road back and forth to town, the only other highway purpose seems to be seasonal recreational access to relatively untouched areas of the Tongass National Forest. And as a state that’s always disparaging our federal government for spending taxpayer money on the social welfare of other people, there’s a bit of hypocrisy building a half-billion-dollar highway for the luxury of driving to new playgrounds.

We also have to recognize that Alaskans can’t choose to put money slated for this project toward other needs like schools or social services. That’s because the vast majority is expected to come from the Federal Highway Trust Fund, including $30 million of the $35 million proposed in this year’s state budget. Those funds are essentially dedicated to roads.

The main source of revenue for the Trust Fund is the 18.4 cents per-gallon tax we pay at the gas pump. But a little more research into this reveals again just how much Alaskans prefer to spend other people’s money. At eight cents per gallon, our state motor fuel tax is the lowest in the country and only a quarter of the national average. Californians pay almost seven times as much as we do. That means we rely on federal funds for our roads more than anyone else.

It’s not as if the Highway Trust Fund itself is a solvent cash cow. Between 2008 and 2010, Congress had to recharge it with $35 billion from the general treasury. The situation isn’t much better today. That’s why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is calling for a 15-cent per gallon gas hike over three years. Just imagine the public outcry if President Obama signed such a tax increase.

Remember too that we Juneauites voted against taxing ourselves by increasing our sales tax to fund a new $50 million capitol building in 1993. And just four years ago we rejected doing the same for the proposed $80 million second crossing to Douglas Island. So how would this issue fare in a public vote that would essentially ask each taxpaying Juneauite to cough up $30,000 for building the road and two new day ferries?

If this is a valid argument against the road, opponents like me need to ask ourselves a similar question. How much more are we willing to pay for ferry fares between Juneau and Haines to eliminate the state subsidy we’re benefiting from right now? And increasing those ticket prices should be part of the analysis before our tax-anxious legislators reverse their normal meaning of overreach by siphoning off federal funds for the Juneau Access project.

  • Comment

Comments (7) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
. Shannara
. Shannara 04/16/14 - 08:01 am
So ... is it cheaper to fly

So ... is it cheaper to fly to anchorage ($350), and rent a car for your road trip? ($250 - $2000 + gas). Or is it cheaper to drive down the road to the short ferry and take your car to Haines to drive?

I don't recall seeing what the prices would be for person + car on that ferry ...

Jason Hansmann
Jason Hansmann 04/16/14 - 08:43 am
I would

There's no where to ride atvs in juneau my friends and I would b gone every other weekend to ride legally. I have lived here for 26 years and have never heard a valid argument for not putting in the road the people against it have plenty of roadless places to move to in southeast this is supposed to be the capital city show me another state capital so backward about progress there are plenty of villages and they all could use more residents.

Art Petersen
Art Petersen 04/16/14 - 03:36 pm
Here's more evidence,

well presented by Mr. Moniak, why investing more in the road to nowhere is not a good idea. The ability to drive out of Juneau, not just "out the road," is appealing. Not appealing, though, in addition to being an extreme "tax and spend" measure, is how the road would not be out of Juneau but just a very long drive to a ferry terminal. Then there's the cost of maintenance for snow removal and the fact that for 3 or 6 or 9 or 12 months of the year, the road might not even be passable due to sudden activity in the many established snow slide and avalanche shoots. And how about when a van full of young soccer players driven by a mom, coming or going to a match, is swept into the channel? Or any travelers? There are many reasons why this road to nowhere is costly and impractical, including dangerous.

Tom Leston
Tom Leston 04/16/14 - 09:27 am
Jason. If these arguments are

Jason. If these arguments are not "valid" enough for you then I doubt there is one that would be.

I think some people just have a need - to feed - needless want. (I want I want I want...therefore I must have it) oh the cell phones, and ATVs..... we don't need STUFF and STUFF is using up all our resources

Karl Ashenbrenner
Karl Ashenbrenner 04/16/14 - 09:26 am

we could take a very tiny slice of that Billion dollars it would take to build the road and buy a large chunk of land "out the road" to turn into the largest most awesome atv park in the world. And the rest of the money could be used to fix the dang crappy job done on paving our existing roads.

Back to Top


  • Switchboard: 907-586-3740
  • Circulation and Delivery: 907-586-3740
  • Newsroom Fax: 907-586-9097
  • Business Fax: 907-586-9097
  • Accounts Receivable: 907-523-2230
  • View the Staff Directory
  • or Send feedback