Assembly candidate Q&A: Do you support the current proposal for a Knik Arm bridge?

In the days leading to the April 2 municipal election, we'll be publishing responses from Assembly candidates to a range of questions. Read other questions at

Q: Do you support the current proposal for a Knik Arm bridge? Why or why not?

District 3: Seat D

West Anchorage

Ernie Hall: Yes and no. I believe Anchorage's future is going to need a bridge across the inlet to access its bedroom communities. It needs to be at least two lanes each way to accommodate future needs. We've seen the Glenn Hwy go from 2 to 4 to 6 lanes. It is not easy to add capacity to a fixed structure.

Nick Moe: I do not. This is a $2.2 billion give away that will leave us the highest tolls in the country. It does not make sense as a business model and requires a state funded bail-out.

District 3: Seat E

West Anchorage

Phil Isley: If you combined the bridge with the port expansion and integrated power generation, then you would have a solid project. I don't support the current plan because it is a money pit.

Tim Steele: Not as planned. Proponents have not demonstrated significant marginal value for the Anchorage community, with unanswered concerns about structural practicality and viable budgeting.

Cheryl Frasca: Support. Given the lead-time for large infrastructure projects, it's important to have a long-term vision regarding access to developable land and the need for an alternate transportation corridor out of Anchorage.

District 4: Seat F

Midtown Anchorage

Dick Traini: No. Numerous studies done on the bridge aren't conclusive as to the economic viability that the bridge would bring to Anchorage. We also don't have the money for such a project.

Andy Clary: I support building the Knik Arm Bridge. It will open up more land and more economic opportunity for Anchorage. The challenge is who will pay for it. An infrastructure project this critical to all of Alaska's economy is a State responsibility in my opinion.

District 5: Seat H

East Anchorage

Paul Honeman: No: I believe the current project as a public/private venture is highly favoring the private entity at the expense of a nearly open ended public funding trough. I am also concerned about the particular location, and would encourage looking at other options.

District 6: Seat J

South Anchorage

Jennifer Johnston: Yes, I still support the assembly resolution passed in 2007. This resolution contains conditions requiring that "no local funds will be used for construction or maintenance of any element of this project and "no construction work will begin on the Anchorage landside bridge approaches until the complete funding package is secured for the bridge and the Anchorage access connections," This encourages the bridge to develop a private model without effecting other local AMATS priorities.

District 2: Seat A

Chugiak/Eagle River

Peter Mulcahy: Yes. We need to have more than one way out of Anchorage and to open up more land for development along the existing transportation corridors. The bridge project is structured to minimize the risk and liability to the state.

Bob Lupo: No.

Amy Demboski: Yes. Anchorage has so little land left to develop, I think that the bridge would create the opportunity to bring affordable housing to many and it would also create a boom in the building sector.