It was troubling to read Bruce Abel’s Sept. 25 My Turn that suggested my latest column about the “The Road” was a “distortion of facts and figures.” As in some of my past pieces on this subject, I relied on documents prepared by the state Department of Transportation in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. If interpreted correctly, they’re examples of what we learn when our government is transparent in its decision making process.
Let’s not confuse truth, facts and the future though. The only fact I mentioned is that most the cost to build the road would come from the Federal Highway Trust Fund. Yet Abel thinks I unintentionally left that out.
The two figures Abel disagreed with were more like economic forecasts. They were based on complex studies conducted in conjunction with the 2014 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
One of them was that the state would spend $5 million more maintaining the road and shuttle ferries system compared to current ferry routes between Juneau, Haines and Skagway. It is the average cost estimated by the state found on page 4-61 of the draft SEIS. The methodology is described in Appendix FF. It includes all estimated capital and operating costs plus ferry revenue.
The other figure Abel didn’t like was the project’s benefit to cost ratio of $0.28. It’s not a label dreamed up by an opposition group, as he divisively claimed. It too came from Appendix FF. Gregg Erickson explained the significance of that figure in a My Turn published Nov. 25, 2014. It’s never been challenged. The quote I attributed to Erickson came from that article.
However, Abel would have been correct if he noted that I erred by saying the state would get 28 cents back on every dollar it spent. It’s actually for every state and federal dollar spent. The return on state spending is estimated to be 85 cents on the dollar. The baseline for both figures is the No Action Alternative.
I don’t know why Abel missed the references to where I got these figures, but anyone who thinks they’re wrong needs to review the documents in enough detail and point out where they think DOT’s calculations or my interpretation of them is flawed. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But alone it’s not a substitute for analysis.
For the most part, road proponents haven’t had to worry about this. They’ve got the luxury of being in agreement about DOT’s recommended alterative to build the road and new ferry terminals on the east side of Lynn Canal. It’s allowed them to focus on the positive forecasts so they can advocate to begin the project now. And I think it’s safe to say that more than a few believe the NEPA process is a regulatory burden that’s unnecessarily added cost and delays while setting the stage for litigation by environmental groups.
NEPA is about a lot more than the environment though. Or maybe it’s better to say environmental impact isn’t just about our forests, waterways and wildlife. NEPA is mostly a tool for citizens to ensure the government is wisely spending our taxpayer dollars while minimizing harm to both our social and natural environments. Estimating the benefit to cost ratio is one way the socioeconomic impact is addressed.
The capital move initiative is an example of how we in Juneau benefited from this kind of government transparency. In 1974, 57 percent of Alaskans voted to relocate and construct a new state capital. Four years later voters decided we should know all the costs before proceeding on such an endeavor. After those estimates were made public the people overwhelmingly rejected the move.
I’m sure capital move proponents weren’t happy when the state was burdened with having to produce cost estimates before starting work. And they were more upset when voters changed their mind. But to Juneauites, insisting on government transparency helped keep this town Alaska’s state capital.
What happened was the people demanded the government do its homework and share it before proceeding with an expensive and controversial project. NEPA does the same thing.
The homework doesn’t end on the government side. People still have the right to challenge the government’s analyses and decisions. For The Road that means reviewing the thousands of pages in the draft SEIS. And when arguing their case, it would be wise for some supporters of the road to dig into those as well.
• Rich Moniak is a retired civil engineer with more than 25 years of experience working in the public sector.
