There’s been a lot of discussion about Gov. Palin’s support or lack of support for the “Bridge to Nowhere” since she was nominated to be John McCain’s running mate. Curious to know more about the issue, I did some research. What is not often heard in the debate is that Ketchikan, in southeast Alaska, is an important port for cruise ships on the Inland Waterway.

On the map, you can see Gravina Island, where the Gravina International Airport is located. You can also see that there is a deep waterway between the town of Ketchikan and the airport, which likely explains why the cost of the bridge is so high. No doubt, there are some interesting engineering challenges to be overcome. Currently, the means of transport between the airport (where tourists land to start their cruises on the Inland Waterway) and Ketchikan is a ferry, which takes 15 minutes to make the trip and costs $6.

The question I have to pose to Gov. Palin is this: why should the taxpayers of the United States build a bridge that would benefit tourists (barely) and cruise lines? In an era of soaring oil prices, what is the future of the cruise industry? The airline industry? Tourism? What kind of mindless Chamber of Commerce boosterism are you engaging in? Is this really a wise use of our tax money? Is this the kind of reasoning that you would continue to use if you are elevated to the position of Vice President of the United States?

I think a wiser use of federal money would be to encourage the use of solar or hydro-power in that area – there should be some pretty good currents running through those narrow waterways, no? How about encouraging sustainable forestry? Or sustainable fisheries? There are plenty of visionary ways to spend our tax monies. Why is Gov. Palin looking backwards instead of forwards?