Voters to decide Alaska road bonds
Published Sunday, April 13, 2008
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!JUNEAU -- Voters in November will decide if the state should incur $315 million in debt to pay for road projects around the state.
One of the last actions of the Alaska Legislature in the session that ended Sunday was approval of a general obligation bond package.
It was originally introduced by Gov. Sarah Palin last January as a $140 million transportation bond package. The House added in $80 million worth of projects and the Senate piled on another $95 million.
Despite concerns that voters might balk at its size, Palin said she will not veto the bill.
She said it is still a manageable amount of debt for the state to incur.
"It truly is just a matter now of the voters having their say," said Palin. "That's the beauty of a bond package, they tell us what their priorities are."
Lawmakers estimate the bonds would be paid off in 20 years at a rate of about $24.6 million a year and an annual interest rate of 4.85 percent.
Palin said it would not affect the state's bond rating, currently at a comfortable AA+.
Not everyone was comfortable relying on bonds for projects, however. Senate finance leaders resisted at first, saying the state should use its burgeoning surplus to pay cash for projects.
Some lawmakers in the House agreed.
"I'm concerned that we are spending someone else's money," said Rep. Carl Gatto, R-Palmer. "We are putting our future progeny in debt."
But House Finance Committee co-Chairman Kevin Meyer, R-Anchorage, said the proposal makes sense. The state can earn more in interest on its savings than it would spend to repay the debt, he said.
"With interest rates as low as they are, it just made sense to borrow and put more money into savings," Meyer said.
The projects range from $30 million to widen University Avenue in Fairbanks to almost $5 million to resurface a road on Prince of Wales Island.
The projects also includes $22 million to build a new section of highway in Anchorage, $20 million for a bridge in Aleknagik, $14 million for Dalton Highway improvements and $10 million for Sawmill Creek road in Sitka.
Some lawmakers grumbled that the bonds' regional balance was skewed in favor of some areas, but others said spending is distributed across the state through all of the budget bills.
The last time the state issued general obligation bonds was in 2002. That's when voters approved a $237 million bond package to pay for construction and repairs of schools, museums and the university.
House Bill 314 passed the Senate 15-5 and the House 24-16.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
If you want more roads go back to the lower 48! Keep Alaska Wild!
Do we need road repairs?
Certainly we do and that is why we should vote NO.
I know, I know doesn't make sense does it.
Neither does a budget bloated with grants and special interest projects and then leaving out things that are essential like maintaining what we already have.
What should have happened and didn't.
All the proposed bonds to repair and upgrade roads should have been in the budget that recently passed.
All the budget requests that create more infrastructure ,pet projects and provide grants etc should be voted on one by one.
Well only $35 million dollars for a bridge in Aleknagik makes sense. After all, there are about 250 people there ..lol. That's aboput $140,000 a head.
The legislature ... can I get a second on a motion to "FLUSH THE TOILET"?
The bill says it's for "state transportation projects". But with a few exceptions, it's all about *road* projects.
I am all in favor of strengthening our state and municipal transportation infrastructures -- only with long- and short-distance rail, not with more asphalt.
Roads serve only those who own cars (which devour 15-30% of our household incomes), for their own private transport. They are essentially a subsidy for people's *private* good. Railways with good infrastructure -- both the long-distance kind across the state, and the light rail that can be built within cities and towns -- can be accessible to all. They are an investment in the *public* good.
Generally speaking (and I'm willing to consider exceptions to this), public money should be spent on public goods. Being able to drive quickly or conveniently to an isolated house does no good for the public. But building walkable neighborhoods and civic centers close to rail stops does a tremendous public good.
From another perspective: the era of cheap oil is over. Perhaps the price will dip a little once in a while, but by and large it will get more expensive to drive cars everywhere we go. People dependent on cars will increasingly get left out in the cold, and we'll all wish we had invested in something more sustainable early on.
--Paul Adasiak
http://fairbankspedestrian.wordpress.com...
A high speed rail link to Anchorage and a track that will let us connect into the Canadian and ultimately US rail system is a great idea. I rode trains all over Europe and Asia. It's a lot more comfortable and safer than cars any day.
On a more local level, how about the Borough upgrades the bus system. I have ridden the bus on occasion with my grandson to get back home with our bikes after an afternoon at Pioneer Park. It was clean, the drivers were helpful with directions, and you relax. With the price of gas now, I would definately choose the bus to get around town. With the price of airline tickets, my next trip to Anchorage will be on the train.
Amen! I ride the bus at least half the year (in the winter), and I'm always pleased with how helpful and personable the drivers are. Also, the new buses are a big improvement over the old ones.
Local rail would have a few advantages, though: (1) Smoother, less-bumpy rides; (2) fixed routes and stops around which neighborhoods (with businesses) could be centered; and (3) less-windy routes and shorter travel times.
To people brought up on automobile travel, investing in a local rail infrastructure probably sounds loopy. (Even to me, it sounds pretty idealistic.) But I really think our community needs to get behind light rail, if it wants to sustain itself for long.
I think some of you are confused.
The road system is vital to moving goods throughout the State. Not just private transport to and from work.
How do you think goods are delivered once they are taken off the barge?
Do you expect rail to have a spur at every business?
No the budget to maintain our current road system should have already been placed in the budget. No bonds would or should be needed. We have most of the money to get it done now.
"The road system is vital to moving goods throughout the State. Not just private transport to and from work.
How do you think goods are delivered once they are taken off the barge?
Do you expect rail to have a spur at every business?"
How do you think goods were delivered before the advent of the automobile? To people brought up on automobile travel, it's hard to believe that goods *did* get delivered. But they did -- for a long time by horse and cart, and then by rail.
There is no need to put a rail stop by every business. Currently, both our businesses and our residences are spread too far and wide to make that feasible.
However, rail offers a stability that buses don't: bus stops may be changed any day, so a business has no incentive to locate near one. That is, there is no long-term guarantee of people being able to reach the business by bus. Rail, being fairly fixed, offers stability: when business owners know that people will be getting on an off a train at a given stop, and that the stop will be there indefinitely, there is a very strong incentive to move business close by.
This has happened in the past decade, in a major U.S. city. (I think it was Austin, but I can't find the article. Nuts!) They instituted a light rail system -- limited at first -- and discovered that, over a few years, more people and businesses were locating near the stops.
That's what I'm suggesting: not that we institute a rail system to accommodate our currently sprawled development, but that we institute a rail system with stops in areas where residences and businesses are already present. Over time, people will see the benefit of living just a few minutes' walk from transit that can get them to most of their meaningful destinations.
PUBLIC MONEY IN THE PIGGY BANK...AND WE ARE BORROWING MONEY TO PAY FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION MAINTANCE?
Wake up, this is about pork barrel projects in the House and Senate Chairman's district that couldn't survive the line item vetoes in the Capital Budget. The disproportionate bond issues on the ballot are to disguise the greed that reeks in the halls of Juneau.
user6244: Vote "NO". Not a bad idea. Might add, a recall petition for every Legislator that voted for this scheme, too. And a Constitutional Amendment that clearly states that only one item SHALL be placed before the voters for each bond issue.
Road have a longer history of PUBLIC use than railroads...ROME was a perfect example.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.