If you look at this on Google maps - *http://tinyurl.com/5ql7y5
Then it seems like a no-brainer to build a bridge... **Yeah, bridge to nowhere isn't quite a fair label looking at the map. **But is there something wrong with just keeping the ferry as transport or is it a convenience factor? Asking out of curiosity because I don't know how truly busy the place is... is a bridge warranted? If it is - why is everyone so opposed to it? Obviously not a huge issue in the scheme of things - I just found the topic interesting. Alaska is like a foreign world to me ;) * On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 1:50 AM, Beth In Alaska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The infamous bridge to nowhere. > So, if you ever fly into ketchikan airport, you can't go outside and walk > around the town of ketchikan, because you are out in the ocean on a tiny > island. You have to take a FERRY from the airport on Gravina Island to the > city of ketchikan. The bridge would be created so that people could drive > to the airport. Its a big bridge for a small city - its as long as the > golden gate bridge, but its not just a bridge to nowhere. > > Ketchikan is a pretty big town by alaska standards with the second largest > airport in SE alaska (follows Juneau). The ferry actually transports over > 350,000 people per year. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;203748912;27390454;j Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:268714 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
