If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Anchorage Daily News)   The Bridge to Nowhere might actually become and Bridge to Somewhere   (adn.com) divider line 46
    More: Followup, Alaska, Ketchikan, Juneau, studying, boroughs, ferry  
•       •       •

8127 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Jul 2013 at 9:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



46 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-07-01 09:41:59 AM
Wat?
 
2013-07-01 09:48:48 AM
subby should be an hero.
 
2013-07-01 09:49:32 AM

become and Bridge


And so say all of us you.
 
2013-07-01 09:50:18 AM
And then?
 
2013-07-01 09:51:08 AM
How is bridge formed?
 
2013-07-01 09:51:17 AM
If their concern is space to develop since they're hemmed in by federal lands, wouldn't it be cheaper to auction off some federal lands on the island?
 
2013-07-01 09:52:15 AM
Ketchikan is the 5th largest city in Alaska.  It has 8,050 residents.
 
2013-07-01 09:53:54 AM

YixilTesiphon: If their concern is space to develop since they're hemmed in by federal lands, wouldn't it be cheaper to auction off some federal lands on the island?


They could put up a casino!
 
2013-07-01 09:54:08 AM
Then who was phone?
 
2013-07-01 09:57:57 AM
Insert snark about the headline.
 
2013-07-01 10:02:16 AM
Want to save money AND sure the local economy?
Take $37.5mil of the $220 and pay the locals $500k to get the F off the island.

In return they MUST build their new homes on the mainland.
Then, use the leftover to build a modest airport ALSO ON THE MAINLAND.

Now you have contractors and crews building almost 100 new homes, and a useable mainland airport.
Make the island a nature reserve.
 
2013-07-01 10:02:25 AM
Building bridge to nowhere make eventually be somewhere.  People travel over things.
 
2013-07-01 10:03:32 AM
Just buy every family a boat.
 
2013-07-01 10:20:09 AM

BHShaman: Want to save money AND sure the local economy?
Take $37.5mil of the $220 and pay the locals $500k to get the F off the island.

In return they MUST build their new homes on the mainland.
Then, use the leftover to build a modest airport ALSO ON THE MAINLAND.

Now you have contractors and crews building almost 100 new homes, and a useable mainland airport.
Make the island a nature reserve.


Stop making sense and saving monsy damnit! Get drunk and spend like a sailor!
 
2013-07-01 10:20:27 AM
They are trying to bridge together Ketchup and Gravy?

EW NO THANKS!
 
2013-07-01 10:30:25 AM
As John McCain's running mate in 2008 [Sarah Palin] said she had told Congress "thanks but no thanks" on the bridge, though the state still got money

Say one thing but do something else...the mark of a true politician.
 
2013-07-01 10:33:05 AM
She voted for it before she voted against it, IIRC.
 
2013-07-01 10:36:29 AM

dennysgod


Say one thing but do something else...the mark of a true politician.


Those are also the marks of criminals and children.
 
2013-07-01 10:37:02 AM
Trolling is and art.
 
2013-07-01 10:44:15 AM
One could argue the bridge down the street from me is a bridge to nowhere, considering this 'city' has <10,000 residents... it is closed right now because it's in bad shape, but I kind of wish they'd just leave it that way.

/street has never been so quiet
//except for the motorcycles
 
2013-07-01 10:54:10 AM
Somewhere
Over and rainbow
 
2013-07-01 11:13:11 AM

Englebert Slaptyback: dennysgod

Say one thing but do something else...the mark of a true politician.


Those are also the marks of criminals and children.



There's a difference?
 
2013-07-01 11:24:07 AM
did this thread just become a troll bridge?
 
2013-07-01 11:24:56 AM
How is speaking engrish formulated?
 
2013-07-01 11:43:14 AM
this headline must be the abridged version.
 
2013-07-01 11:59:05 AM
It never was a "bridge to nowhere".  People are retarded.
 
2013-07-01 12:01:48 PM
Terabithia?
 
2013-07-01 12:04:56 PM

BHShaman: Want to save money AND sure the local economy?
Take $37.5mil of the $220 and pay the locals $500k to get the F off the island.

In return they MUST build their new homes on the mainland.
Then, use the leftover to build a modest airport ALSO ON THE MAINLAND.


Show me where you would put the airport.
 
2013-07-01 12:21:27 PM
The area in question:  http://goo.gl/maps/WiSsw

I think a bridge makes some sense there.  Too bad it costs so much.

Maybe they could put up a rope bridge or something, instead.
 
2013-07-01 12:31:35 PM

Mycroft_Holmes_IV: The area in question:  http://goo.gl/maps/WiSsw

I think a bridge makes some sense there.  Too bad it costs so much.

Maybe they could put up a rope bridge or something, instead.


or you know, they could farking pay for it themselves.

Or move, moving isn't a bad idea.

If you live in the middle of nowhere, we shouldn't have to subsidize your ass.
 
2013-07-01 12:37:42 PM

BHShaman: Want to save money AND sure the local economy?
Take $37.5mil of the $220 and pay the locals $500k to get the F off the island.

In return they MUST build their new homes on the mainland.
Then, use the leftover to build a modest airport ALSO ON THE MAINLAND.


1: Ketchikan isn't on an island, dipshiat.
2: There is nowhere else to build the airport. The Feds own everything else in reach.
3: Relocating the city, or even just the airport, would cost more than the bridge.
 
2013-07-01 12:40:08 PM

Ed Grubermann: BHShaman: Want to save money AND sure the local economy?
Take $37.5mil of the $220 and pay the locals $500k to get the F off the island.

In return they MUST build their new homes on the mainland.
Then, use the leftover to build a modest airport ALSO ON THE MAINLAND.

1: Ketchikan isn't on an island, dipshiat.
2: There is nowhere else to build the airport. The Feds own everything else in reach.
3: Relocating the city, or even just the airport, would cost more than the bridge.


Okay, that one's wrong, but the island is huge. (Fact checking, how the hell does that work?)
 
2013-07-01 12:42:46 PM

Hollie Maea: It never was a "bridge to nowhere".  People are retarded.


This bridge, which is needed, got lumped in with some horseshiat bridge up near Anchorage, that was not needed in any way.

On the downside, if they do build the bridge to the airport the local government will no longer have anything to argu about and might have to do real work again.
 
2013-07-01 12:58:34 PM
Why bother turning a territory into a state in the first place if the feds own most of the land?
 
2013-07-01 01:04:53 PM

BHShaman: Want to save money AND sure the local economy?
Take $37.5mil of the $220 and pay the locals $500k to get the F off the island.

In return they MUST build their new homes on the mainland.
Then, use the leftover to build a modest airport ALSO ON THE MAINLAND.

Now you have contractors and crews building almost 100 new homes, and a useable mainland airport.
Make the island a nature reserve.


And that's going to be cheaper than building all new houses, developing all new lands, building all new roads, and then completely demolishing an airport, existing rods, existing ferry docks and 75 homes, all needed before it can become a "nature reserve"?

And yeah, the bridge probably NEEDS to be on the island, since Ketchikan is a royal farkload of mountains. Having been there, I can tell you that they would have to do a LOT of terra forming, and then planes would probably only be able to land and take off to the West, North South would be super tight, and East would be completely unusable. Ever.
 
2013-07-01 01:10:21 PM

Latinwolf: Why bother turning a territory into a state in the first place if the feds own most of the land?


Because Nevada was lonely in that category.
 
2013-07-01 01:11:20 PM

groppet: Stop making sense and saving monsy damnit! Get drunk and spend like a sailor!


Spoken like someone who has no idea what they are talking about. Go back to TFA and look at the picture, look at how close the mountains are to the water, and how sloped even the city land is, and add JUST an airport.
 
2013-07-01 01:13:29 PM

Mycroft_Holmes_IV: The area in question:  http://goo.gl/maps/WiSsw

I think a bridge makes some sense there.  Too bad it costs so much.

Maybe they could put up a rope bridge or something, instead.


Keep in mind that bridge would probably have to be extra high so the ships could pass under it. Otherwise, they have to back out of the dock, and backtrack around the entire island to get north. I would bet that would be more wasted fuel in a year than the bridge would cost. Ketchikan has a very busy port.
 
2013-07-01 01:26:53 PM
To their credit, it's one of the few ways to tell if she's really a witch.
1.bp.blogspot.com
/will be in Ketchikan in two weeks, no shiat
//will take non-existent pics of the non-existent bridge
 
2013-07-01 01:33:58 PM
Just take the gay guy over.
 
2013-07-01 01:35:33 PM

Mock26: Just take the gay guy over.


Oh wait, is it ok to call it a ferry?  Or is that still politically incorrect?
 
2013-07-01 02:26:54 PM

Ed Grubermann: There is nowhere else to build the airport. The Feds own everything else in reach.


Why don't the Feds just sell some damn land then? Or is the Federal land too mountainous even for residences?
 
2013-07-01 03:55:01 PM
I'm in the minority here, but I never really thought the bridge was a bad idea.

Here in Arizona, the population of Phoenix, some farm land and Tucson was probably less than 1 million in 1970. The project costs of building a canal from the Colorado River across the desert to both cities was almost $3 billion. I think it ended up being closer to $4 billion.

The result?

Phoenix is the 6 or 7th largest metropolitan area in the country and the state has well over 5 million between the 2 cities and their suburbs and the areas in between that are serviced by the canal. It has slowed ground water pumping and helped the state whether some really bad droughts. It has been a good longer term investment for the state.

Will the bridge do anything like that?
 
2013-07-01 07:06:34 PM

Nadie_AZ: I'm in the minority here, but I never really thought the bridge was a bad idea.

Here in Arizona, the population of Phoenix, some farm land and Tucson was probably less than 1 million in 1970. The project costs of building a canal from the Colorado River across the desert to both cities was almost $3 billion. I think it ended up being closer to $4 billion.

The result?

Phoenix is the 6 or 7th largest metropolitan area in the country and the state has well over 5 million between the 2 cities and their suburbs and the areas in between that are serviced by the canal. It has slowed ground water pumping and helped the state whether some really bad droughts. It has been a good longer term investment for the state.

Will the bridge do anything like that?


Not even close.  The city that the bridge would connect to has a population of 8,500 people and its economy is almost entirely based on fishing and tourism, and it is pretty much at saturation levels.  There are already perfectly good ferries to transport people from the city to the airport and back.  There is no need for a bridge.  If there was a major road with lots of traffic that was being halted while waiting for ferries I could see a need, but the ferries do a good enough job already.
 
2013-07-01 07:37:29 PM
Creating something for the bridge to connect to the mainland is Phase Two of Project Dumbo Money Drop.

They named it in honor of Sarah Palin, the Great White Hunter Hope Elephant, President of all she surveys.
 
2013-07-01 08:31:44 PM
They have to cross the Tongue-Ass Narrows to get to the airport?
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report