Dear Editor,

I can't speak to the need or viability of the Knik Arm bridge as I have not spent much time in that area.

However, in regard to the Gravina bridge, this is where I have lived for over 40 years.

I don't believe the proposed bridge represents a good value for our transportation dollars.

To the contrary, I think it could prove harmful by taking too much of our resources away from other needs now and limiting access to future funding.

It seems that sight of the objective has been lost. What we need most in this region is access to more developable land. As proposed, the bridge and road to the airport is only that. No side roads, not even an off-ramp onto Pennock Island.

For a fraction of the cost of a bridge, we can build and maintain a system of roads, additional ferry terminals and small-boat harbors that would access thousands of acres of developable lands that are currently not on the tax roles.

Unlike the building of a bridge, all of this alternative construction could be performed by local and in-state contractors in an immediate timeframe. Just in construction costs, the result would be a net gain to the community over the relative small percentage spent locally by a large out-of-state builder. Add to that the ancillary effect these access corridors would have in finally making it practical for individuals to develop land currently unreachable.

Ketchikan is among the 10 most desirable places in the country to own a second home; we should not have a problem marketing parcels of newly accessed land to this demographic. The resulting work would keep many people employed far beyond the initial construction of the roads.

Sticking to a bridge-or-nothing attitude could easily result in nothing when viewing the overall needs in the state.

John Stewart, Ketchikan