Look inside to fi nd:

Population Growth p. 2

Regional Transportation p. 3 Crossing Corridors p. 4

Mat-Su ApproachCorridors p. 4

Anchorage ApproachCorridors pp. 4-5

EIS Studies in Progress pp. 6-7

No-Action Alternative p. 8

Updates p. 8

Knik Arm CrossingFurthering the regional development of Southcentral Alaska

Buildable

Affordable

Environmentally Sound

At one time, conventional thought held that building a crossing of Knik Arm

would be too challenging. Not so say new studies, recent fi eld work, and the best professional advice. Preliminary fi ndings from seismic studies, for example, indicate that a structure can be designed to withstand a seismic event. These fi ndings are based on actual geotechnical borings from Knik Arm and expert advice from University of Alaska Fairbanks seismologists. Preliminary fi ndings from geotechnical studies show that Knik Arm soils can support a crossing. Recent construction activities at the Port of Anchorage and Port MacKenzie dock

confi rm this information. Not even the area’s ice fl oes and tidal action are considered show stoppers. Ongoing and upcoming project studies include video monitoring and fi eld observations at the Port MacKenzie dock to determine the level of icing that occurs under various temperatures, wind patterns, and tidal action (see page 7

for more information). All told, specialists have not uncovered anything that would call into question the ability to ensure a safe, economical, and suitable design.

While it is too soon to put exact price tags on project alternatives (alternatives are under development, see pages 4, 5, and 8),

the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority (KABATA) has been crunching the numbers. At this point, three independent cost estimators say that a safe, environmentally sound crossing can be built with a budget of $400 to $600 million. Their estimates include a bridge, approach roads, design, project management, right-of-way acquisition, infl ation, and factors to account for a changing construction economy. Based on those preliminary estimates, KABATA is developing a fi nancial plan to fund the

project using federal, state, and local grants, as well as revenue bonds that will be repaid by tolls. After more information on toll costs and traffi c demand is known, an independent analysis will help determine how much of the project could be fi nanced through revenue bonds and then repaid by tolls.

A team of engineers and scientists is writing the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in compliance with the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA). The EIS will study how a crossing would shape our future. An objective and highly regulated process, NEPA requires the study of a range of alternatives, as well as the disclosure of potential adverse or benefi cial environmental, social, and economic consequences of the project. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the lead federal agency overseeing this process (for more information on the environmental studies and analysis that occurs as part of this process, see pages 6 and 7). FHWA will review the EIS and make a fi nal decision in the public’s best interest.

The Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority adds a new dimension to Alaska’s capacity to build critical transportation infrastructure.

Construction workers on Port MacKenzie dock

Engineers and planners are busy studying Knik Arm and its surrounding physical, human, and natural environment. What they’re fi nding is that a safe, cost-affordable, and environmentally sound crossing can be built.

It is of key importance that wildlife populations remain healthy for future generations to enjoy.

Bird watcher surveying Knik Arm

Volume 2August 2005

Page 2 Page 3

National Wildlife Refuge, 19%

Private or Municipal, 1%

Private or Municipal, 8%

National Park, 10%

Bureau of LandManagement, 20%

Native Corporation, 3%

State, 59%

Bureau of LandManagement, 31%

National Park, 12%

National Forest, 6%

State, 21%

Native Corporation, 10%

Knik Arm

Planning for the Future

The area of private and municipal land that will be accessed by the Knik Arm Crossing is more than three times the size of the Anchorage Bowl.

Land Use Statistics• The MSB is 24,683 square miles, about the size of

West Virginia. • The MOA is 1,961 square miles, just a little larger

than Rhode Island.• Over half the population of Alaska lives within the

MOA and MSB, principally in Anchorage and the Palmer-Wasilla area.

• Most MOA residents live in the Anchorage Bowl, which is about 7% of the municipal land area.

• Approximately 10% of the MOA is populated, with much of the remaining land held by federal, state, and Native interests.

Traffi c Statistics• One principal north-south transportation corridor

in the region connects the MOA and the MSB—the Glenn Highway.

• Traffi c on the Glenn Highway grew by 60% between 1993 and 2003, more than 5% each year.

• Traffi c planners estimate that Glenn Highway traffi c will grow to over 100,000 trips per day—double the current 50,000 trips per day—unless a solution is found. Approximately 60% of that growth will come from the MSB.

• Midtown Anchorage is the most common commute location for both commuters from the MOA and the MSB. Approximately 27% of MSB commuters commute to Midtown Anchorage.

• About 80% of the state’s consumer goods are imported through the Port of Anchorage.

• The 80 mile road distance between Anchorage and Port MacKenzie signifi cantly limits effi cient access.

A Piece of the Regional Solution

Rapid Population Growth

While the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) has grown at a compound rate of 2.4% per year, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough

(MSB) has grown nearly three times as fast—at a rate of 7.3% per year. In 2000, the combined MOA and MSB population was approximately 320,000. In 30 years, the regional population is expected to increase by an additional 194,000 people. Furthermore, economists believe that the primary employment center will remain in the MOA while the MSB will be home for more and more of our growing population. The result—more traffi c on an already crowded Glenn

Source: “Economic Projections for Transportation Planning in Southcentral Alaska 2000-2035,” Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska, June 2003, prepared for Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions as part of the update to the MOA Long Range Transportation Plan.

Why the Knik Arm Crossing?

The purpose of the Knik Arm Crossing project is to further the development of transportation systems in the Upper Cook Inlet region by providing improved vehicular access and surface transportation connectivity between the MOA and the

MSB in the vicinity of Cairn Point. The crossing will meet the needs for:

• Improved regional transportation infrastructure to meet existing and projected population growth and locally adopted economic development, land use, and transportation plans, and as directed by the Alaska State Legislature in Alaska Statutes chapter 19.75.

• Regional transportation connectivity for the movement of people and the movement of freight and goods to, from, and distribution between the MOA, the MSB, and interior Alaska.

• Safety and transportation system redundancy for alternative travel routing and access between regional airports, ports, hospitals, and fi re, police, and disaster relief services for emergency response and evacuation.

Highway and increasing housing prices as competition for good, accessible land grows.

The Knik Arm Crossing presents a potential solution to accommodate our burgeoning growth. By opening up a new connection between the MOA and the MSB, the crossing would access close, developable land. The project would work in conjunction with planned improvements like ferries and commuter rail to meet the expected population growth and transportation needs. The Knik Arm Crossing is included in Alaska’s State Transportation Improvement Program and complements regional planning efforts.

The Knik Arm Crossing is an important piece of the regional solution for our future growth.

It would provide new transportation and development choices for a rapidly growing population.

• Over 75% of the Anchorage Bowl was already in use by 1998, and only one-sixth of the area was identifi ed as vacant and suitable or marginally suitable for future community expansion.

• The Knik Arm Crossing general project area is about 382 square miles, or 2% of MSB land. This area is 3.41 times the size of the Anchorage Bowl.

• About 3% of private land in Alaska is found in the Knik Arm Crossing project area of indirect effects.

Commuter Rail• Carries riders to and from their destinations (usually from

home to work and back). • Operates on standard main line railroad track using existing

rail infrastructure.• Typically links areas 10 to 50 miles away, a central city and

adjacent suburbs, or nearby cities.• Typical service occurs once every 30 minutes, either throughout

the day or only during rush hours depending on demand.

Roads (bridge and tunnel)• Provides direct access to almost every destination.• Well-suited to moving vehicles (cars, trucks, and transit

buses) over short and long distances.• Provides a high level of convenience, allowing people to

travel at their own discretion.

Ferries• Considered as a modal choice for large water crossings, where

a bridge is not feasible. • Flexibility to be deployed to travel various routes and to meet

growing or changing needs.• Often used as a fi rst phase of a crossing when demands are

low, but less effi cient as demand grows.Freight and Intercity Rail• Provides effi cient heavy freight services as well as passenger

services for visitors and residents.• Most effective for big loads being hauled long distances; less

effective than moving cargo by trucks for short distances. • Truck and rail freight systems complement each other;

nearly all goods reach their fi nal destination by truck. • Not particularly well-suited to moving vehicles over short

distances.

Regional Transportation Planning

Great planning efforts are currently underway in the MOA and the MSB. Both areas have community comprehensive plans (such as the MOA’s

Anchorage 2020) and long-range transportation plans. The Knik Arm Crossing fi ts into the picture by connecting these planning efforts, presenting a transportation solution to meet population growth north of the Anchorage Bowl anticipated by Anchorage 2020 and MSB planning efforts.

The Knik Arm Crossing project is being proposed as part of an intermodal regional transportation network. Supporting our economy and quality of life, our transportation system is an integrated multi-modal system that includes:

All of the transportation modes are necessary and each has a particular strength to meet a particular transportation need. For example, rail is good at moving bulk goods and natural resources long distances, while transit links higher density neighborhoods with job sites for shorter trips, and ferries can be used beyond transportation for needs like waterborne emergency response and rescues. When integrated, the individual modes work together to meet our regional needs for projected population and economic growth, regional freight and goods movement, and transportation system redundancy for safety and emergency response and evacuation (see the list of mode uses below).

• roads• bridges• railroads• airports

• marine vessels• ferries• ports• transit (buses)

Land Distribution in Alaska

Source: Alaska Department of Natural Resources, land use maps

Regional Transportation System

Modes in the Regional Transportation Network

Alaska has relatively little private or municipal land (1%).Land Distribution in the MSBPrivate and municipal land in the MSB offers a sizeable percentage of land for community growth (8%).

Page 4 Page 5

Concepts on the Table

Mat-Su Approach Corridors Anchorage Approach Corridors

• 4 miles• Starts at Point MacKenzie Road, turning northeast around

Lake Lorraine and then south • Connects with the crossing just south of Anderson Dock

Northern Access Corridor:

West Bluff Drive Corridor Variant

• Starts south of Cherry Hill housing complex• Crosses West Bluff Drive and Ocean Dock

Road and turns south• Connects with A/C couplet

Erickson Street Corridor Variant

• Starts south of Cherry Hill housing complex• Follows Erickson Street• Connects with East Loop Road and onto A/C

couplet

Four Bluff Variants:

Point MacKenzie Road Corridor:

• 3.75 miles• Starts at Point MacKenzie Road and follows the existing

road to the south of Lake Lorraine• Connects with the crossing just south of Anderson Dock

Below the Bluff Corridor:

Above the Bluff Corridor:

• 4 to 5 miles, depending on the variant• Starts at the crossing and turns south at Cairn Point, running parallel to the

Anchorage shoreline below the bluff and along the perimeters of Elmendorf Air Force Base and Port of Anchorage

• Three variants connect with the A/C couplet; one variant connects with a new Ingra Street/Gambell Street couplet at the Glenn Highway (see below)

• 4 to 5 miles, depending on the variant• Starts at the crossing and turns south at Cairn Point, running parallel to

the Anchorage shoreline above the bluff and through Elmendorf Air Force Base

• Three variants connect with the A/C couplet; one variant connects with a new Ingra Street/Gambell Street couplet at the Glenn Highway (see below)

Post Road / Reeve Boulevard Corridor:

• 9.5 miles• Starts at the crossing and runs east onto Elmendorf Air Force Base north of

the airfield• Crosses Fairchild Avenue and turns south along the main Alaska Railroad

track, crossing Fort Richardson railroad spur and the Davis Highway• Turns west and crosses Vandenberg Avenue and Pease Avenue, passing the

Elmendorf Air Force Base access gate and becoming Reeve Boulevard• Connects with 5th Avenue at Reeve Boulevard

Boniface Parkway Corridor:

• 8 miles• Starts at the crossing and runs east onto Elmendorf Air Force Base north of

the airfield • Crosses Fairchild Avenue and turns south along main Alaska Railroad track,

crossing Fort Richardson railroad spur, Davis Highway, Arctic Warrior Drive, and Ship Creek

• Connects with the Glenn Highway near Boniface Parkway

Muldoon Road Corridor:

• 8 miles• Starts at the crossing and runs east onto Elmendorf Air Force Base north of

the airfield • Crosses Fairchild Avenue and turns south along the main Alaska Railroad

track, crossing Fort Richardson railroad spur, the Davis Highway, Arctic Warrior Drive, and Ship Creek

• Connects with the Glenn Highway near Muldoon Road

Hiland Road Corridor:

• 11 miles• Starts at the crossing and runs east through Elmendorf Air Force Base north

of the airfield • Crosses Fairchild Avenue and the main Alaska Railroad track, continues east

for several miles, passes north of Bryant Field, and follows Pole Line Road• Connects with the Glenn Highway at Hiland Road

Crossing Corridors

Perpendicular Crossing Corridor:

Skewed Crossing Corridor:

• 2.5 miles• Approximately 2 miles north of

Cairn Point on the Anchorage side• Crosses Knik Arm nearly

perpendicular to the western and eastern shorelines

• 2.5 miles• Approximately 1.25 miles north of

Cairn Point on the Anchorage side• Crosses Knik Arm slightly

skewed to the western and eastern shorelines

Elmendorf Corridor Variant

• Starts south of Cherry Hill housing complex• Follows Arnold Drive, turns south onto Arctic

Warrior Drive• Connects with East Loop Road and onto A/C

couplet

Ingra/Gambell Corridor Variant

• Starts south of Cherry Hill housing complex• Follows Degan Street• Crosses Alaska Railroad and Ship Creek• Connects with a new Ingra Street/Gambell

Street couplet at the Glenn Highway

Alternatives are developed through a highly regulated process. At this time, alternative roadway corridors have been developed and are featured here. See page 8 for

more information on the alternatives development and screening process.

Page 6 Page 7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Dow

ntow

n

Eag

le R

iver

/ C

hugi

ak

Hill

side

/ S

outh

Anc

hora

ge

Mid

tow

n

Mili

tary

Bas

es

Mou

ntai

n V

iew

Mul

doon

No

Ans

wer

Spe

nard

/ Tu

rnag

ain

Turn

agai

n A

rm

Uni

vers

ity

Per

cent

age

of M

SB

Com

mut

ers

Locations to which MSB Residents Commute

Source: Northern Economics, Inc., 2005 Knik Arm Household/Commuting Survey.

EIS Studies in Progress

Household Survey

• In March 2005, 400 Alaskans in the MSB and 400 in the MOA were surveyed to measure public support of and comments about the Knik Arm Crossing project.

• Overall, 66% of those surveyed were in favor of the project, citing the need to open up more land, shorten commutes, and stimulate economic development.

Beluga Whale Study

• Watchers at key locations in and around Knik Arm recorded beluga activity during daylight hours July 2004 through July 2005.

• The study incorporated the expertise of local Tribes.

• The National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA) Fisheries and other agencies reviewed the study parameters.

• Beluga whales in varying numbers used Knik Arm between July and November; few individuals were spotted in other months.

Fish and Invertebrate Study

• Fish and invertebrates were sampled monthly at eleven sites in Knik Arm during ice-free conditions between July 2004 and July 2005. Invertebrate populations are important food for juvenile salmon, marine fi sh, and birds.

• Water salinity, temperature, and clarity were also monitored.

• All fi ve species of adult and juvenile salmon (Chinook, pink, sockeye, chum, and coho) and marine species such as saffron cod, pacifi c herring, and eulachon were collected.

Bird Study

• Shorebird presence in and use of Knik Arm tidal fl ats within the project area are being surveyed.

• Various gull species were observed near shore, ducks (several species) were found mid-channel, and bald eagles were observed in trees near the tidal fl ats.

Socioeconomic Projections

• Future population and economic growth in the MSB and MOA with and without a Knik Arm Crossing is being evaluated.

Traffi c Modeling and Study

• Traffi c planners are integrating MSB and MOA traffi c planning into a regional transportation model to examine existing and future traffi c volumes and needs.

• This work is a collaborative effort between the project team, the MOA, Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions (AMATS), and the MSB.

• This model is allowing planners to envision how the Knik Arm Crossing, larger scale projects, and growth in the MSB or MOA will affect traffi c in the region.

Geotechnical Studies

• Soils and groundwater conditions along the proposed project corridors are being evaluated using substantial existing data as well as new soil borings and testing to determine design criteria.

• The study indicates that the project corridors can be constructed with conventional methods, and that it is not insurmountable to construct near the bluff or for seismic events.

Land Use Modeling

• A geographic information systems (GIS) model is being developed to profi le land use changes over time in the MSB and MOA with and without a Knik Arm Crossing.

• This study is a coordinated effort of the project team, the MSB, and the MOA.

A great benefi t of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process is the new information that’s collected, compiled, and made available to the public and local, state, and federal agencies. On the Knik Arm Crossing project, many groundbreaking studies that are currently in progress may serve generations to come as they plan for our

future. Below, we’ve highlighted a few of the studies that are truly innovative. Each of these studies will feed into the EIS.

Marine Ice Study

• To determine the ice forces that might act on a crossing, engineers are monitoring temperatures, wind patterns, tidal action, and ice thickness; recording actual forces on the Port MacKenzie dock; and reviewing other studies.

• Engineers are also studying other projects. Many structures have been built in northern regions where they have been subject to ice forces. In particular, many of the bridge structures on the North Slope of Alaska have piles that survive tremendous ice forces in winter and during spring breakup.

Hydraulics and Oceanography Studies

• Numeric modeling of Knik Arm hydrodynamics supported by additional oceanographic fi eld studies (scour, sediment, currents, and tides) is being used to evaluate potential impacts to a crossing.

• These studies will be used to develop engineering design criteria for hydraulic and structural design.

Seismic Study

• A probability and magnitude study on earthquakes in the project corridor is being augmented with Knik Arm geotechnical borings to determine local geological conditions.

• Consultation with global seismic experts from the University of Alaska Fairbanks is ensuring that any project structure will meet or exceed current seismic design standards.

• The study has not revealed any issue that casts doubt on the ability to ensure a viable and safely designed crossing.

Physical Environment Studies

A team of scientistis, engineers, economists, and planners is hard at work on the studies that

will provide key information for the EIS.

Socioeconomic Studies

Knik Arm Beluga Study; NOAA Letter of Confi rmation No. 481-1795; Photo taken by Darren Ireland on May 30, 2005

Test piles at Point MacKenzie

Port MacKenzie with ice

Spotted sand piper

Sample collected in Knik Arm

Wildlife Studies

Tribal Workforce Workshop

Pedestrian Study

• A study is underway to evaluate potential pedestrian and bicycle access along proposed corridors.

Cultural and Historic Sites Study

• Agency and local experts are helping to determine the presence of cultural and historical resources and to identify future impacts in the project area. Study methods include database searches, interviews, and surveys.

• KABATA has sponsored workshops for local historic groups, Tribes, and Native Corporations to encourage development of a comprehensive historic preservation plan that will identify and protect historic sites.

Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment

• An assessment of a crossing’s potential indirect and cumulative effects (in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions) is underway.

Security Requirements

• In conjunction with military staff, the team is analyzing security requirements for corridors that border or pass through secure areas such as the Port of Anchorage and Elmendorf Air Force Base.

Human Studies

Commuter Survey

• In March and April 2005, 400 Alaskans in the MSB and 400 in the MOA were surveyed to provide information on regional commuting habits, housing preferences, and tolls.

• If a crossing were built, more respondents indicated they would stay in the region. This result may help stabilize the population, making us less transient.

• The Point MacKenzie/Knik Arm area may be a center for growth within the MSB if a crossing is built.

• Responses indicate that the construction of a crossing would not result in a decline in the population of the MOA, but rather a slight slowing of the growth.

Page 8

Knik Arm Crossing Updates

Thanks for attending the second round of public scoping meetings!

We were pleased by the attendance and participation at our second round of public scoping meetings on July 12 and 13. (The fi rst set of public scoping

meetings was held April 2005). The comments you made at the July meetings were all recorded, and the team will take into account your suggestions in the EIS.

After the July public meetings, the team held an interdisciplinary team meeting as well, which included representatives from many federal, state, and local agencies.

We appreciate the cooperation of the interdisciplinary team, and we will continue to meet with these representatives on a regular basis to make sure that issues are addressed and to ensure a sound decision-making process.

We are now in the process of concluding the scoping phase of the EIS, which ends on August 12, 2005. The comments we receive from the public and from agencies will help the project team make the Knik Arm Crossing EIS a thorough and detailed document. Thanks for your participation!

This report is distributed by the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority at a cost of $0.15 a copy to provide information and encourage participation. Printing was contracted in Anchorage, Alaska.

More Questions? Comments?

Lisa Loy Gray, Public Involvement CoordinatorKnik Arm Crossing Project2525 ‘C’ Street, Suite 305Anchorage, AK 99503Phone: (907) 644-2160Fax: (907) 644-2022

See our web site: Or contact:

www.knikarmbridge.comBetty Fauber, Administrative ManagerKnik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 1850Anchorage, AK 99501Phone: (907) 269-6678 Fax: (907) 269-6697

No-Action Alternative

The No-Action Alternative incorporates all planned development and projects through 2030. This includes the Alaska Railroad

Corporation’s proposed commuter rail system, the MSB ferry system, MSB and MOA traffi c projects, and state highway improvements. NEPA requires that the EIS analyze a No-Action Alternative.

Next Steps: Alternatives Development and Screening Process

Purpose and Need CriteriaTo satisfy the Purpose and Need Criteria, the alternative:• Provides effi cient regional transportation

connectivity for the movement of people to, from, and between the MOA, the MSB, and interior Alaska

• Provides effi cient regional transportation connectivity for the movement of freight and goods to, from, and between the MOA, the MSB, and interior Alaska

• Is fi nancially feasible• Is sustainable• Is consistent with locally adopted economic

development, land use, and transportation plans• Provides a redundant route to the Glenn

Highway

Technical CriteriaTo satisfy Technical Criteria, the alternative:• Has logical termini• Is technically feasible using proven construction

methods and minimizing construction risk• Is technically feasible with facilities constructed

that meet accepted design standards within the established cost limits

• Allows for future rail crossing• Supports existing port operations• Does not confl ict with navigation• Complies with airspace restrictions and

operations• Does not confl ict with military missions and

operations

Alternatives are developed and defi ned through a highly regulated NEPA process. The goal of this process is to consider

many solutions, and whittle those down to a set of reasonable alternatives, which are carried forward and studied in the EIS (see the graphic to the right). Key to this process is the development of a range of alternatives.

Alternative roadway corridors have been developed (see pages 4 and 5). Next, roadway corridors will be screened using the criteria to the right. Alternative modes including ferry and rail are in development and will also be put through the same screening process. The mode and corridor concepts that survive the screening will be developed in more detail. All concepts will be screened again through the criteria. The surviving concepts will be called reasonable alternatives.

Next, the EIS will identify, analyze, and document the potential adverse or benefi cial environmental, social, and economic consequences of each reasonable alternative. Thirty-three topics will be studied in the EIS, including wetlands, land use, air quality, and noise (see pages 6 and 7 for specifi cs on some ongoing studies). A draft EIS will be completed in late 2005 and will be available for public review. A public hearing will be held, and the fi nal EIS will address all comments. When the EIS is complete, the FHWA will fully consider the information and make decisions in the best overall public interest.