By Robert Fruehan
August 04, 2005
I think (my own opinion) the money would be better spent by an addition to the museum showing more of the local history/culture, more money towards the aquarium project, etc. The tourists are here to see Alaska not buy jewelry. If you build it they will come sounds good in a movie but getting more to come is not the answer. Getting more to spread the word that it is the place to visit is. No matter where you extend it, it will be yet another view blocker and does not promise Ketchikan increased revenues.
What is the estimated time it will take for the $70 million to be paid off in "increased" revenues from tourism as a result of this extension? I bet it will be a long time, certainly nothing a normal business would choose to invest in. As if you add equipment or invest money into your business you have a plan that shows how long it will take for that equipment or investment to pay for itself. This one sounds too long term with too many variables.
And I have to agree with everyone about the bridge, for that price you would hope that it would at least look good, I also agree that if you want to get to the airport driving through tourists downtown and out to the bridge then to the airport will take too long. How about making South Tongass wider, safer and pothole free instead? Ketchikan has some of the worst paved highways in the state not to mention poor lighting along many parts of it.
Again, this is my own opinion
and Don Young would probably think I just finished a large amount
of marijuanna but I think the bridge idea is good. However its
location, cost, look, all suck. A better spot is a straight
shot, shorter bridge near Wolfe Point. No burial ground desecration
at that spot, it would be shorter and only require one bridge
and would cost (or should) much less. But I would rather see
a road to the mainland first.
On the Web:
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Sitnews.