It’s “nice” to see that the projects that created public interest in the excesses of Congressional budgetary earmarks are still available for show-and-tell. From the New York Times:
When Congress removed the earmarks for the bridges in 2005, it still gave the state the money, but it allowed Alaskan officials to decide how to spend it. The state reserved about $200 million for the proposed bridges, far less than the construction costs but enough to show that there was serious intent to complete the projects. Some environmental and planning work has already been done.
Supporters of one of the bridges, the Knik Arm Crossing, are expected to get the proposal included in Anchorage’s long-range city transportation plan in April.
The agency charged with building the bridge, a private-public partnership, is courting private investors for a toll-driven, for-profit venture. If built, the Knik bridge — which has been discussed since before statehood in 1959 — could cost about $1 billion beyond the approximately $110 million the project has received from Congress.
The article also mentions that work on the access roads for a $400 million bridge to connect Gravina Island (population 50) to Ketchikan (population 8,000) is also underway.
While I’m sure that both are impressive projects, somehow I wonder what the cost-benefit analyses really look like.