Decades of Juneau Road debate revived during state information session on new effort
- Chilkat Valley News
- 6 hours ago
- 6 min read
Development at Cascade Point north of Juneau, road extension south of Haines among projects now advancing
By Will Steinfeld
Chilkat Valley News
Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s administration this year revitalized a long-running proposal for a road up the Lynn Canal, pitched as a way to better connect the state capital in Juneau to the surrounding region.
The proposal has, over the span of multiple decades, proved extremely resilient. It has returned again and again in the wake of defeats and delays, most recently in 2016, after it was nixed by Gov. Bill Walker.
And the return of the project this summer has included tangible work: a $28 million contract for site-development at Cascade Point, north of Juneau, where a new ferry terminal could be built.
On top of that Cascade Point plan is the potential for further work in the Haines Borough itself: a road that would travel up the west side of the Canal, either from William Henry Bay or Pyramid Harbor, then across the Chilkat River to connect to the existing Haines road system.
That proposal has had its own up-and-down path within the broader project. It was originally deemed unfeasible in a 1996 state study, but brought back in 2006, according to DOT documents.
Now, that west-side road is the subject of a $2.4 million feasibility study, which included a public open house last week in Haines. But at the open house, and amid the rest of the summer’s discussions, Haines residents say they are witnessing a rehash of decades of planning, without much new information.
Attendees at the open house, hosted at the public library, included long-time residents who recounted decades of Juneau Access Road debates. The record bears that out; in the Chilkat Valley News archives are descriptions of open houses on the topic, going back almost 40 years, including multiple in 1989, 1997, and 2014. Almost all are described as having between 30 and 50 residents in attendance, and “vocal opposition” from the crowd — an apt description of last week’s event as well.
Largely, the questions about the project have remained the same during that timeframe. While the DOT estimates the road would cut down on travel times, many at the open house said the road would actually make travel less convenient for people in the borough. One version of the plan would have drivers cross the Chilkat at the Klehini River Bridge, meaning a trip to Juneau would require a drive up the road north, and then back down south to a ferry at either Pyramid Harbor or William Henry Bay.
“It doesn’t make it any easier for us to drive up 26 miles, cross the bridge, and come back,” resident George Figdor said. “You spend the first two hours trying to get back to where you started from, basically.” Bridges could also be built across the river closer to town, state plans say.
Others, like Gina St. Clair, questioned how walk-on passengers would get from a Cascade Point or Katzehin River ferry terminal to Juneau. State officials have said there is no public-transport route planned from the new terminal.
Yet another line of critique centers around safety and maintenance-cost concerns. Residents questioned how the state would deal with the dozens of avalanche zones along the proposed route, and the safety of ferries crossing the width of the canal during winter.
These all echo past discussions, like one town hall in Haines in September of 1997, where residents also expressed doubts about the viability of crossing the canal in winter, and maintaining a road said at the time to cross 58 avalanche chutes.
As many of the questions have remained the same, so have many of the answers. For instance, during that 1997 meeting, DOT representatives detailed plans to remotely detonate high-risk avalanches. One DOT engineer, Pat Kemp, acknowledged that a more robust ferry would be needed to make the cross-canal trip.
The state’s current plan for avalanches, at least for the Cascade Point Road, remains similar, to remotely trigger threatening avalanches and build bridges and barriers across vulnerable areas. The state projects avalanche-control costs for the west side road at $2.2 million per year.
For skeptics, the bigger question that remains is just what the purpose of the project is, given their doubts about the convenience of a new road. One DOT representative at last week’s meeting, environmental impact analyst Tyler Riberio, confirmed that was the main question he heard from residents.
Riberio said his answer was that the west-side road study comes from further up the chain.
“As the Department of Transportation, we were given direction to conduct a feasibility study and analyze any alternatives that could be constructed here, so that’s why we’re here,” Riberio said. “We’re the executive branch of the administration, so we get direction and we execute.”
In project documents, the DOT says travel to Juneau will be cheaper and quicker for Haines residents.
Many skeptics at last week’s meeting, doubting the actual convenience of the new road, said they have a different explanation for its purpose: mining. That motivated at least part of the public opposition, which included a brief “no road” chant during the open house from a handful of attendees.
“It’s not for the people of the Upper Lynn Canal, it’s for the mines,” St. Clair said. “I hope we don’t waste what little money our state has left on this.”
The mining talk isn’t pure speculation, at least for the Juneau Access Project writ large. A press release this spring from Canadian mining firm Grande Portage praised the movement toward the Cascade Point ferry terminal.
“Development of the ore terminal is not contingent on development of the passenger ferry terminal – it can be developed prior to (and independently of) the passenger ferry facility,” the press release read. “However, having the ferry terminal proceed first is highly advantageous as it would result in the development of infrastructure that will also be necessary for the ore terminal, particularly the new access road and bridge. This reduces the time and cost required for future ore terminal development.”
Resident Dean Heard said he didn’t want public money going towards private mining projects. “I have no problem with it if the right people pay for it: the extractors,” Heard said.
Not all in attendance on Thursday were in opposition to the project, including former mayor Jan Hill. Hill said she had come to the town hall hoping to hear new information, but hadn’t heard any. However, she said, she was still supportive of potential economic benefit for the project.
That potential boost for local business has long been a point of question. Some town hall attendees, including Diana Lapham and Ryan Cook, said the connection to Juneau could bring new commerce and jobs into town.
In a 1996 Chilkat Valley News article, John Schnabel specifically pointed to the development on the west side of the canal as a way to ensure benefits of connection to Juneau — including cheaper cost of living, Schnabel said at the time — came to Haines, and not Skagway.
But others have said the road could have the opposite result. Local business owner Rodney Hinson said this week he’d expect to get a slight bump in new customers from Juneau, but also lose customers to Juneau. That’s something he said could affect other businesses even more.
“I know I’d sure make a lot of runs to Costco and Home Depot,” Hinson said. “I support our local businesses as much as I can, but when you look at the price of some items here compared to in Juneau, it would cause a lot of people to go down there to shop.”
Hinson said the only plausible explanation he had heard for the road was facilitating Lynn Canal hunting and fishing access for Juneau residents.
The bigger issue for him, as a citizen, he said, was the project cost. The DOT in 2018 projected the west-side highway as a $595.6 million project. The state currently has $202 million appropriated for the Juneau Access Project.
“I know a lot of (the project funding) could be paid for by federal money, but that’s still our tax money,” Hinson said.
For all the different viewpoints, there seems to be at least one point of agreement: after decades of false starts, no one expects to see asphalt actually hit the ground.
“There were times I didn’t support (the project), times I did, times I supported parts of it, times I had no opinion on it,” Hill said. “The bottom line is I never expected it. I don’t expect to ever see the road.”
• This article originally appeared in the Chilkat Valley News.
