Second Crossing

For years, the city pursued a second crossing between Juneau and Douglas Island. In 2010, Juneau voters rejected a local bond measure that would have paid for the project, and it has not been as high a priority since. Do you support the second crossing, and if so how should it be financed?

I absolutely support a North Douglas crossing. As a former Planning Commissioner, again, I know that development on Douglas cannot happen with the current bridge. The traffic fails at the current bridge. I think that when the community voted on that the last time, people heard that it was about getting to Eaglecrest faster or getting to Fred Meyer faster, and really what it’s about is having a place for our community to grow. So I would encourage us to reopen that project, get people talking about it again and making sure that it is understood that the reason we need that project is for developing land, flat well drained land, that can grow our community and have a port out there and housing and another place for people to live. Again, one of the main concerns that everybody has is housing of all varieties and the North Douglas or West Douglas is an opportunity for that to happen.

One of the things about financing is there has to be a transportation reason – not just a local transportation reason – for federal and state funding to come. If we would talk about a port out there, those kinds of things, that would enable us to get those funds. Again, that whole thing needs to be opened up again and discussed to educate everyone and ourselves about the opportunities out there.

At this point it hasn’t really been an issue over the last couple years. I think that the voters spoke back in 2010, and they didn’t support the issue then. I haven’t seen much change in our community that would signify that there’s been a change, where they would support the road in the future and I would go with the majority and what they support. And if the majority does not support the road, then we’d have to honor those wishes.

I live out North Douglas. I voted against the second crossing back a couple of years ago mainly because I couldn’t see the demand in the near future that would justify the expense of a second crossing. That said, I was talking with an Assemblyman here recently who said there is a real possibility of some movement on an extension of the road towards an area that could serve as a deep water port. That is a game-changer in my mind. If there really is a market and a need for that second crossing that’s going to benefit the entire Borough – not just we in North Douglas that want to get back and forth quicker – then I think we need to really bring that much closer to the forefront and it becomes something that I think we need to pursue. As far as the financing, I haven’t got any idea. I really don’t know. Given our present conditions, certainly the Borough itself can’t afford it. But maybe there’s some other way to do it.

I think a crossing between the mainland and North Douglas is a good idea. I think it will help us to reduce a lot of safety problems we have on North Douglas Highway right now. It is basically a 13-mile long driveway and no matter what it’s signed at people drive 60 miles an hour summer and winter. It’s a dangerous road. I think that we can bring a lot of both safety and efficiency and economic benefit with a North Douglas crossing.

The financing package is much, much tougher. Right now, it doesn’t meet Uncle Sam’s formulas to help us pay for it. And it’s got to cross a game refuge, which Uncle Sam doesn’t like to put money into doing. So there’s, I think, a lot of consensus building that has to happen to finalize a route and put together a funding package. Ultimately, it is a notion that makes sense for Juneau.

I do support a second crossing, but it’s become clear that with the isostatic rebound and the filling in of Gastineau Channel that, in my lifetime, Gastineau Channel is actually going to be a bay and the second crossing is going to be a road. At that time, we can pursue what funding is available, be it federal or state.

I definitely approve of a second crossing. I think it would definitely open up the North Douglas and West Douglas area for development. I personally voted no however on the last second crossing because it was essentially paving the wetlands. I think it needs to be logically looked at and has little environmental impact or a lot less than the last one did. I would think that kind of financing possibly a temporary sales tax.

I think that having more than one way to get to an island is a very good thing. In terms of safety and as well as convenience. But, that sort of thing can be pretty expensive, building a bridge, and with all the engineering and all the research that has to go into it. So if we were to do that, we would probably have to finance it over a period of time rather than all at once. That’s something that I haven’t really looked into a whole lot, as far as how to finance everything. It’s something that I’m definitely interested in, something I would take a look at.

I think it should be financed back through a ballot initiative. I think sooner or later, there is — they will need some access out there. There’s some discussion of, as it’s called, West Douglas, as it’s called, development out there. I know that has come up. Obviously, you can make the road longer, you can look for ways to build out there, and make it profitable to build out there, and those types of things. But sooner or later, it always comes up to having to have a crossing. And I think it’s as much looking at it from a public safety standpoint, as it is anything else. If you’re gonna, if you want to build around the west side of Douglas over there, I think you’re gonna have to have some other type of transportation system to get there, for folks who may need that.