Why is an alternative unacceptable, neutral, or acceptable?
None of these mitigate the traffic problem, and all will severely impact the Kenai River, and the "Walls" is "pure-d UGLY" - affecting the scenic attraction from road and river view. Both Kenai River and Kenai River Walls would require some or much private property be relinquished or divided - between river restrictions and highway this could almost "wipe-out" a lot of the community.
Protection of the Kenai River means sustaining the fisheries and the recreation resource that supports many people through sport and commercial fishing and sightseeing raft trips. We've been lucky that we've only had gasoline tanker spills (at the near MP 48 bridge in 1976)and the fuel oil spill near Gwin's Lodge last fall. There have been some close calls. I've heard that some pretty serious and hazardous stuff gets trucked through here. The route through Cooper Landing along the Kenai River is the only way to truck anything to the rest of the peninsula. Everyday I drive on the highway through the Landing, people pass me over double yellow lines. They don't like traveling 35 and 45 mph. In the summer we sometimes wait for 10 minutes or more to get out onto the highway from Towle Avenue. Cooper Landing businesses have gotten pretty seasonal, but I know there are some who would lose business if there was a bypass. I think especially of the Shrew's Nest, Cooper Landing Grocery, and Wildmans. I definitely would not want to see any businesses built along the bypass. There should not be a chance for competition with community businesses. Signage on the east side of town should show services and businesses available.
Obviously they have to many bridges over the river and cost would be way to high
The integrity of the business sections should be maintained. A new route should provide speed to users. Existing road should be alternate to business areas. It will reduce the amount of traffic and import safety to bypass business areas. Staying away from the river will reduce impacts to it from petroleum runoff from roads.
Undesirable impact on business.
Do not spend money through town.
In researching nationwide retaining walls I can see that they can be visually pleasing. Geoweb Confinement Cellular Systems is a good example. They can be vegetated. The public has demanded that retaining walls be improved visually and it seems to be working across the nation.
Present highway is very dangerous to both pedestrians and vehicular traffic.
All of these alternatives are acceptable because they keep road impacts in the already impacted area. The Kenai River alternative is less desirable because it builds new road at the lower end of Juneau Creek thereby increasing the disturbed impacted area to the north of the river.
No build - it would destroy the quality of life in Cooper Landing - each year there is an increase in thru traffic - Kenai river walls - the highway needs to be relocated away from the river - there was a fuel truck spill on "Gwins Curve" the winter of 01/02 and if the road remains near the river these types of accidents will only get worse and once the fish habitat is damaged how long would it take to recoup and how much economic damage would be done?
A huge wall along the Kenai River is crazy. People and vehicles just need to slow down in that corridor. And slightly straighten the road.
Stays near of crosses River.
The road already goes through this community. Most visitors are probably going to want to see this anyway, and will go there. I think there would be a big economic impact on existing businesses that would be by passed with the implementation of a new route.
Building the bridges necessary to straighten the road would destroy the character of a very beautiful river valley. I think moving much of the traffic away from the river would not harm the local businesses. Development along the road and increased traffic in recent years have marred the valley as it is.
No build - something needs to be done to reduce hazards The beauty along this part of the river is spectacular; however there are potential impacts which could have adverse impacts to river habitat.
Too much disruption of traffic during construction.
Keeping the road in it's current location is the most appealing alternative.
Would not solve traffic problems
No-Build; ignores serious problems Kenai River Walls;too much impact on river Kenai River; too much impact on river All three of these alternatives ignore the issue of speeding traffic and frequent semi/auto accidents which impact the residents, wildlife and the river. Through traffic should have the opportunity to drive a more direct route to the rest of the peninsula.
I want to minimize environmental impact and cost.
Kenai River Walls: This is the most acceptable alternative because it would improve the existing road with the least impact to the environment, habitat and residents of the area. No Build: This is unacceptable because some thing must be done to improve the current situation. Kenai River: This would be more acceptable if there weren't so many new bridges involved.
No build is acceptable because it maintains the status quo. Kenai River Walls is acceptable because it does not add any new bridges over the river. Kenai River is unacceptable because it adds two new bridge across the River.
By widening/improving the existing road your increase to impacts, relatively speaking, is minimized. There's already a road there creating an impact which we all can see now and have understanding/acceptance of. It's the road everybody will use regardless of other alternatives if constructed. I am opposed to new highway corridors chipping away to the south or north of the existing highway. There's plenty of space to widen the existing road, and leave the rest of Alaska alone!
Keeps traffic closer to local businesses stays in current impacted area
These alternatives are unacceptable because they do not adequately address safety and traffic congestion issues.
I believe any construction along or close to the river will have a greater impact on the river and cost will be much greater in the long run. To remove the dangerous conditions that now exist will be very expensive.
A no-build scenario would only guarantee that traffic will remain slow through the curves. As traffic counts increase, the foot traffic is also likely to increase, further endangering lives on-and-off the road. Although the Kenai River Walls alternative has all the advantages of the Kenai River alternative, the walls themselves would be unappealing to the general ambiance of the highway as a whole. Imagine as a tourist: the whole highway has a natural splendor of Alaska, and then you run into a wall.....(which is also why the local citizens would have a cow) The Kenai River alternative is possibly the most acceptable. This alternative would ensure that the businesses of Coopers Landing will remain, and possibly grow. Also, the minimum effect to lands and wildlife would be disrupted, since the highway corridor is more-or-less already established. Even if Cooper Landing would be effected greatly during construction, the disruption would be short-lived and the results would be worthwhile over the long-run. A bypass could be built later when the Kenai River Alternative met LOS F(forecast by 2022). Then, the currently-planned Alternative would become a nice boulevard for Cooper Landing.
Keeping the road in its existing corridor causes the least disturbance to surrounding wildlands. The road can be made safe for traffic, particularly with the Walls alternative. This is a scenic corridor and there is no reason why traffic cannot be asked to slow down in this stretch of road. It is important to make the curves and narrow portions safer, improve entrances on driveways to remove hazards, such as poor visibility, and provide some turning lanes.
Stay away from the river
Keeps traffic in town, increases congestion.
Leave the more leisurely drive through Cooper landing to the tourist. These alternatives would not solve the traffic problem through that area.
Too Expensive. In addiction, the majority of the people are looking for the shortest and quickest route to the Kenai Peninsula. Would not eliminate the congestion around Russian River during Salmon Season.
Safety and too ugly
Too close to the Kenai River. The road next to a river is always slick in the winter. There are to many chances that a fuel truck or next, something more devastating could run off into the river. The speeders will not abide to the speed limit nor is the State Trooper giving any tickets to try and slow these people down.
Do not like driving through Cooper Landing,It is a bottle neck for people who are going further south.
Too many bridges, too costly.
Kenai River Walls would be the next best to Cooper Creek but I hate to see the river disrupted.
Any alternate that does not move us out of the current corridor is not solving the problem.
All are unacceptable from standpoint of safety and impact on the river and scenery.
Take the new route away from the existing. Locate it where it can be straightened and widened.
Current road is satisfactory. High speed through this gorgeous area is ludicrous. This is Alaska, not LA.
None of these alternatives are attractive because they 1) still route traffic through highly-developed and pedestrian-intense areas and 2) exposure too much of the Kenai River to steady vehicular traffic. The Kenai River alternative is especially unacceptable because of the number of crossings required to make the highway straight.
I want some thing done to separate highway traffic from local and river recreation traffic so the no build alt is unacceptable to me. Since the river walls alternative seems to be the best non-bypass alternative that gets the highway traffic thru the area safely and improve safe access to the local community and river I can live with the walls.
Conservation concerns
Safety
I would like the area to stay just as it is and require drivers to slow down. Maybe put in some bike paths for pedestrians and bikers to be more safe. It is a much cheaper route do to budget constraints too.
Lets go around cooper landing all together.
Still too close to original route. Too many conflicts with thru traffic and business customers, pedestrians etc. interested in getting through cooper landing area without delay, conflicts unless destination is cooper landing
The No-Build Alternative is somewhat unacceptable because some improvements are needed. The Kenai River Walls Alternative is mostly acceptable because it generally follows the existing alignment, minimizes the disturbance of undeveloped area, and offers some improvement. However, it is a bit pricey, with three bridge replacements. The Kenai River Alternative is unacceptable with four new Kenai River crossings.
Improving the existing alignment would mean no new traffic corridors through undeveloped areas, no increased impacts to trails, wildlife, & fisheries resources. Impacts to cultural resources can be mitigated. River users already hear/see highway traffic so retaining walls would not be much of a change. River users will always hear/see highway noise since no alternatives propose eliminating the existing road. The Kenai River alternative ---- unacceptable number of river crossings. TOO MANY BRIDGES for such a short distance of new alignment. No Build is unacceptable --- the road is dangerous as is. Not only are peoples lives in danger but fisheries and tourism resources are also in jeopardy. The fuel spill at Mile 52 (fall, 2001) should have been a wake up call.
Doing nothing with increased traffic will kill people. This is unacceptable. Enhancing the existing corridors, with appropriate river protection buffers is the preferred alternative.
Traffic that close to the river leads to contaminants possible finding their way into the river. Also you would still have all that traffic piling up at the Russian river campground. Even if you did widen it and put in turn lanes. Also the only real way to widen it there is to cut into the existing campground and move it back. And if I am not mistaken didn't we just sink several mil into it.
Something needs to be done so the no build is out. I believe the cost on the Kenai River route is low with the construction of four new bridges as well as the negative impacts these bridges would have on the beauty of the river. I don't like the ideas of walls...pretty ugly!
No, Need to stay way from Kenai River.
Keep off the river and structures. Avoid people and don't worry about ultra greenie environmentalist extremists.
Stop crossing the Kenai River
No-Build is not an option--we must improve safety. Kenai River and Kenai River Walls alternatives will merely speed up traffic without improving capacity, increasing safety concerns. These options provide no improvement in river habitat protection and may actually harm habitat.
I do not like the idea of the retaining walls. The kenai river alternate has modest annual maintenance costs
People who want to go to town will go.
None of these alternatives do enough for the roadway, esp. to Sportsman Pt.
I do not like the wall ideas because this habitat will be in danger of the construction that will take place to put the walls in. I would prefer a route that takes the traffic away from the river.
We need to use a bypass alternative. This moves traffic away from the river and reduces impacts on the river. Additionally, the existing alignment is totally unacceptable for safe and efficient traffic flow (LOS). The economic impact to local business of a bypass route, while a local concern, should not be a major factor in deciding the preferred alternative. The long term impact on external communities, safety and efficient travel by far outweigh the benefit local Cooper Landing business might receive from a Through Town Route. The entire economy of Cooper Landing is relatively small compared to the rest of the highway users.
Main traffic should avoid Cooper Landing and the Kenai River completely.
Creating larger roads through the Cooper landing area would be economically and nature wise cost prohibitive...why ruin what is there now...allow people to choose an alternative route.
Making better use of the existing highway (slowing traffic, enforcing speeds, straightening and widening where possible) makes the most sense since it keeps traffic in commercial area, keeps traffic out of wilderness areas, best for wildlife to limit exposure to automobiles, etc.
The new road needs to get away from the river. Summer traffic will always be a bottle neck in the river area.
The no build alt. is out of the question, something needs to be done. The river alt. doesn't seen too bad, but the kenai walls is too close to the river for too long
Need to build a road that is away from the cooper landing town- to keep traffic moving along safely.
Prefer to improve existing highway
Going through Cooper Landing doesn't make sense when other alternatives are available. Protecting local businesses should not be a major priority in site selection. If it was we wouldn't have a Parks Highway, New Glenn, New Seward, etc.
The no build is not an option as the road needs to be rerouted. As a highway, the route should offer the most expedient route through the area, with as little impact on rivers and creeks as possible. I feel highway traffic should be route out of the current area completely.
The road definitely needs to be improved. Those curves really frighten me, especially with the semi traffic.
All these routes cross the river at some point and you will wind up mixing the Cooper Landing/Kenai River fishing traffic with through traffic that is headed south.
I want a road to get to Soldotna without having to wait for a caravan of motorhomes to move out of the way.
The north side are my preferred routes. Staying away from the river is preferred. I would agree with the routes that are higher up on the side of the mountain if it it would improve winter driving conditions (darkness and ice on road surface).
Slowing down the highway traffic on this one section of the road is the right way to go. Observe highways in other parts of the country and world and see how it works with two lane highways in congested areas. We can have the Sterling Highway travel through the heart of Cooper Landing as it does now, but improve the speed (slow it down) of the drivers in this area. Enforced speed limits, with patrols are necessary. Building safe pedestrian crossings and paths are also necessary.
I like the idea of following the Kenai river but I am concerned about the impact of the traffic on the river. I think going through town is not a very good alternative since there aren't really that many areas where the highway can be widened enough without deleting some of the homes and businesses along the route.
Road should run down north side of river and bypass cooper landing. Safer for drivers and the residence of copper landing.
I am tired of straightening highways and increasing speeds - this is a perfect place to keep the same road alignment and have people slow down and enjoy the ride.
The scenery is already disturbed. Adding walls to allow for a safer road won't change that very much. We'd all like the world to be as it was 150 years ago, but that cannot be. I don't like having the traffic go through town, though. It's a dangerous place for residents!
These are no good, we need a new road away from town. Reduce traffic and less accidents.
Something needs to be done to protect the river habitat from traffic exposure and yet give the best viewing of the river.
Should try to do as little damage to the area.
The no build option is probably not acceptable primarily due to capacity issues and lack of pedestrian amenities. Either the Kenai River Walls or the Kenai River options are clearly the most acceptable because they do not require major habitat and trail destruction. These options will add needed capacity and at the same time protect the viability of existing and future local businesses. What is wrong with people slowing down and enjoying the drive through Cooper Landing? Either of the bypass routes adds long term maintenance costs and does not address upgrades that are needed for the existing road through town. Why not build a project that enhances pedestrian movement through town? town?
It is obvious we need to build a road, but I do not favor going through the town as it does now. It is a mess in the summer. I would like to see it as a destination not something to drive through.
Mostly unacceptable- doesn't seem to meet the needs for transportation solutions neutral- some mods to the existing road may help for a while
Kenai River Walls -- retains basic alignment but walls may be pretty ugly and could impact private property significantly. No Build -- what's the trouble with slowing down to drive through this scenic area? It seems as if some relatively simple adjustment of the shoulders, driveways, and signage could make this rout safe and serviceable. Kenai Rive -- way too much construction near the river.
We need to move through traffic around the town not through it. Most traffic going through town now does not stop. The kenai river should be left the way it is.
Seems to keep speed at a more moderate level.
Improving the existing highway will only increase the existing problems. Freight traffic normally exceeds the speed limit through Cooper Landing by 10 to 15 miles per hour. Alaska residents traveling from the Peninsula to Anchorage, or vice versa, are seldom interested in our roadside services. They are in a rush to "get to or from" and seem to find the reduced speed limits an inconvenience at best. Far too many accidents occur between Mile 45 and 51 because of the conflict between "sightseers" and those in a rush to "get there."
Keeps a lot of the road next to the river and with the increased speed, there will be increased accidents. The widening of the road will cut drastically into my property and place my cabin right next to the road.
I'm neutral in this case because I realize something must be done to make the area safer, although I do believe there must be a certain amount of responsibility placed on drivers to be cautious when going through the area. If it means slowing down when going through this area as is currently the case, then so be it. There is no constitutional right to go at a high rate of speed through an area such as this.
The Wall alternative changes in the road are changes that have to be done anyway and are underway right now. This will get rid of most of the bad corners. Passing and turn lanes at key locations, including Jim's Landing, Sportsman's Landing, The Russian River Camp Ground and most of downtown Cooper Landing. With these things taken care of there is no reason to impact any other part of the most beautiful valley in Alaska.
Kenai River Walls: Walls along the Kenai River would ruin the natural beauty of the river. No build: As traffic increases over the years it is becoming more and more dangerous to mix the local traffic with the through traffic. We do need to separate the two. Kenai River: This entails adding 4 more bridges to bring the total bridges to 6. That's 200% more bridges across the Upper Kenai. That would completely ruin the scenic beauty of an Upper Kenai float trip
As stated above.
Safety concerns must be addressed (prudently). Too many bridges with too much impact on the Kenai River. Cost is high however this seems to be a pretty good alternative with minimal impact on wildlife.
Unacceptable proliferation of bridges with Kenai R alt. Keep the road away from the river. Walls alt looks like a lot of work for not much benefit.
Walls and River Routes both do NOT address Spill risk to River Walls Route would be Ugly Scar Kenai River Route= TOO MANY River Crossings No Build is better alt than either of the above
again, impact on river ecology and increased possibility for contamination of the river - also, increased and/or faster moving traffic through our town is totally unacceptable
The Kenai River Walls option is a great option as it stands. This option involves no significant encroachment into wild land and low river/bridge impact. The only downside is the eyesore of the buttress walls and that is a minimal sacrifice.
The Kenai River is a world class gem. This is a river I first visited in 1967 and now take my children there. It is unique and must be protected. I have read about new highways, "If you build them people will come." No matter how big you make the highway or how wide eventually it will fill up with motorhomes and trucks. The river ecosystem must be of primary importance and then safety. The Cooper Cr. alternative would solve many, but not all these problems. Putting two more bridges over the Kenai would just give more places for trucks to spill into the river. The Bean Cr. alternative is totally unacceptable because it destroys so much habitat. I would rate the alternatives in order: Cooper Cr., Kenai Walls, Kenai River, with Russian River, Bean Cr. as no way, never. Thanks, Jerry S. Dixon, biologist
kenai river walls adds no more road capacity or heavy traffic by-pass. It widens the road in the middle of business residential areas increasing noise, exhaust, and traffic dangers where they are not needed. There seems to be no point to this solution. Improving the kenai river corridor road is always desirable, if done in an environmentally conscious way. kenai river alternative requires 4 more bridges and seems to send traffic essentially right down the middle of the river...acceptable only for salmon and trout. Doesn't make much sense in my opinion.
Obviously, from the perspective of disruption to the environment and the community of Cooper Landing, the No Build alternative is the best one. If law enforcement would crack down on motorists speeding through the area the vehicle accident problem could be solved. My fear is that with an improved road, drivers will simply go faster causing even more accidents. If construction is going to take place, the Kenai River Walls alternative is the best . It continues to route traffic through the community allowing businesses to continue to thrive from income gained by "incidental" stops. This alternative is the least disruptive to the environment as it uses the existing roadway and does not impact any new areas, previously undeveloped. Finally, this alternative does not impact the highly valued Resurrection Trail system. Some have brought up concerns that the existing road heavily impacts the Kenai River. I would like to point out that among the alternatives, all of the creek crossings flow in to the Kenai. Thus, the impacts would be felt even though these alternatives do not route traffic along the river itself. Plus the road and several houses are already visible by people floating this section of the river.
More practical.
No Build; the road must be improved for so many reasons. Kenai River; No rout that crosses Juneau Creek is acceptable. Kenai River Walls; This rout will impact property owners but, the road was there when they built and expansion should have been a thought in the back of their minds. This rout allows businesses the maximum traffic flow and impacts the environment the least. Fewer bridges would be built across the Kenai, and from a rafters point of view I like that.
We do not NEED, nor are we ENTITLED, to be able to get through Cooper Landing at 55 PMH Hazardous materials will always be a threat in the corridor, better to spend some $ in spill cleanup preparedness. In my experience in other areas (e.g.Colorado, Washington, Vermont) scenic drives are enhanced by the necessity of slowing down to go through towns. I believe it is a waste of scarce state funds to cut minutes off of travel time. Reduced speed through town should be strictly enforced possibly including machines which report current speed to drivers.
To expensive, and I don't like the impact it would have on the river.
This route has minimum impact on the Resurrection trail and Juneau Falls area. As such it is the route I mostly favor.
The kenai corridor is the best for me because you could do some work for making it safer, but not having to reroute the entire system. The impact on the community may or may not be positive. I have taken a point of being a cooper landing stopper. Stopping somewhere is a very important aspect of safe travel and does well for the community. a candy bar purchased in cooperland means for the kenai than one purchased in Girdwood.
Keeping the alignment along the river does not reduce pedestrian safety and further endangers the river and river habitat
Design can be engineered to reduce hazards to the river
Kenai river Walls would have the least impact on the wilderness, brown bear habitat, scenic beauty of the region. The multiple bridges required to follow the Kenai River route would destroy the pristine nature of the river. The alternative to not build is the best alternative in that the only impact is that drivers will just have to learn to live with driving at a slower speed. THERE IS NO NEED TO INCREASE THE SPEED OF TRAFFIC!!!
Still have high traffic flow adjacent to the river. This does not improve the long term traffic flow in this area.
No Build because the existing poor scenario would become worse over time. KRA and KRWA because of the continued impacts to the Kenai River.
Minimal new road construction.
The Kenai River and Kenai River Walls alternatives have less impact on habitat and trails but still has impact on cultural resources. Is an OK alternative. You cant have everything
Too expensive. Do not address my important issues. Safety and travel time while preserving the environment.
No build - doesn't solve the existing problems Kenai River - too many impacts associated with new bridges and realignment down the river Kenai River Walls - resolves worst safety issues, and minimizes new impacts to fish and wildlife
No build, not realistic. Multiple bridges? Most folks don't seem to like this. Are you gaining enough over the wall alternative to make the bridges and river conflict worth while? I doubt it, though some modification might be considered. Walls will work, and in the end, I'd venture that's where we end up, though I won't bet a 100.00 on it yet! With another brick in the wall, the Pink Floyd Alternative as I call it, we're going to have to live with a slower speed limit through town, which we do though, through Sterling, Soldotna, Ninilchik, and Anchor Point, and Moose Pass on the Seward. It's not all bad, the slower speed, and with all the passing lanes Tern to Sunrise, and with reconstruction, up the hill west from Sunrise, and again Cooper /Russian passing lanes, things will be sorted out to some degree.
Keeps traffic in valley where most people want to be. Some upgrades need to be done for safety. Shoulders, safety for pedestrians, turn pockets need to be added. Design for slower speed. We need to see how this will affect extent of walls. Some combination of these alternatives could work. People are going to want to be in valley for river, views, recreation, businesses.
Safety should be the number one factor in this whole project. None of the above would be correcting this in any way. Also, we must and foremost consider the danger to the river. We are fortunate that there has not been more hazardous spillage into the river. In making changes to the road, where would the busy traffic be routed?? The walls and kenai river alternatives would most likely destroy our water source (spring) for which we hold water rites which are registered with the states of Alaska. This spring should also be considered a historical site, since the old timers came here to get water which is probably the best water on the Kenai peninsula.
Those of us that live beyond Cooper Landing do not want to fight the local traffic. If someone has a desire to see Cooper Landing, they will choose the road that takes them there.
Need to carefully account for Truck needs
Doesn't adequately address the safety problems for motorists and residents of the community, nor the congestion during peak season.
Too many crossings. Danger of spills
Though I do not want to see more impacts to the Kenai River, I feel the 2 alternatives would be more acceptable than the Juneau Ck ones.
The Kenai River Alternative was and is a contrived alternative designed to scare folks, get their eye on the JCA and off other far more reasonable alternatives such as the Wall Variant& the Cooper Creek Alternatives. Never a true alternative, rejected by everyone, it should, like the Russian River Alternative, be thrown in the "Alternatives Considered But Eliminated category. No build has is unacceptable since the sharp curves along the existing highway should have been fixed decades ago using the 30 million dollars DOT has wasted in iteratively studying this project to support state jobs with federal dollars. DOT's concern for public safety and efficiency ring hollow with the continued existence of hazardous curves that have killed, maimed, and wasted resources under the knowing and unremorseful eye of DOT. Kenai River Walls is my preferred solution. It is a solution that fixes the long ignored sharp curve safety problem with no additional environmental impact on land, animals and humans. Analysis of accident statistics over the years reveals the accidents are caused by sharp curves and the associated concerns regarding the Kenai River are associated not with "proximity" itself but rather curves in proximity to the river. Therefore elimination of the sharp curves alleviates concern for proximity to the river in spots. It is a proper and fair economic alternative for the businesses along the existing highway who have collectively invested millions of dollars and created dozens of new jobs by developing their businesses over the years.
To me, there are only two acceptable reasons for doing this project at all. One is to get the road totally away from the rivers to reduce the chance of a highway-caused toxic spill. The other is to improve safety. On the latter, there are only a few places that are major safety problems. One of them is the curve below Gwin's. We could fix that by cutting through that ridge, so that the road runs straighter and back from the river a little. No new bridges required; minimal risk to the river. If I understand the alternatives correctly, the closest thing to that is the Kenai Walls alternative, and that is the one I support. On the issue of reducing threat of spills to the river, the best way to me seems to be to detour north before ever reaching the lake, and not coming back to the existing highway until you are well past the area where the river and road run side by side. That would be my third choice, although it is not clear to me that it would be worth the time and money. My second choice would be no build.
Each of these options give the highest impact to the river and will not improve traffic flow through the area.
Current right of way could be straightened to remove a couple of sharp curves. Again I see no need to lay new asphalt through wilderness areas. The Kenai River Alternative was idiotic to begin with.
I'd prefer a rail spur to any change in the road at all.
These alternatives are expensive, and continue to congest this area.
Again all three of theses alternatives do not address the relationship with the river and the fact that most people that drive through Cooper Landing do not stop here.
Kenai River Walls stays in corridor while improving driving conditions
this is by far the best choice for everyone involved
No Build = dangerous and restrictive road conditions. K.River & Walls = grossly ugly & disruptive to river & adjacent environment & private property
The 7 or 8 river crossings is not acceptable in the Kenai Alternative. The Kenai River walls variant alternative improves the exciting right of way using state-of-the-art technology. DOT must let the public know more about how the federal and state agencies support and concerns of the walls variant, especially "stakeholders" if this is truly a stakeholder process with integrity.
1. None of these alternatives allow for the ever increasing impact of traffic congestion through the Cooper Landing area. 2. None of these alternatives reduce the possibility of catastrophic spills into the waterways in and around Cooper Landing. New bridges called for in the KRA increase the possibility of spills and will be a visual detraction. 3. Bridge replacements will cause environmental impact on the crossed waterways. 4. None of these alternatives reduce the serious and dangerous traffic congestion problem around the Sportsman's Lodge Boat Launch area. 5. Impacts to private property owners due to widening of the roads with the KRA and KRA Wall Variant alternatives. 6. All three alternatives do not improve the aesthetic and recreational qualities of the area. Rerouting pass-through traffic around the area will make Cooper Landing a destination for visitors and recreational users rather than a through-fare for nonessential traffic. Cooper Landing will become another Wasilla rather than a quaint, beautiful, river and lakeside community.
Everywhere you turn in cooper landing there are habitat issues
None provide any degree of improvement to an existing bad traffic situation
My preferred solution is the Kenai River Walls alternative, because it basically keeps the existing alignment. The Kenai River alternative is mostly acceptable for the same reasons, except for the new section of road. The no build is preferred over the south side options. Would like to see the lowest possible design speed to enhance pedestrian safety and provide more business opportunities for the businesses along the route.
These seem to do the least to solve the problem and they do not move enough traffic and potential spills away from the river. However, if the people of cooper landing who are most affected by the project really want the main road thru their town then I would support them.
Walls: Costly but least impacts the watershed and all its residents (wild and otherwise.) If the speed is kept to a minimum this alternative could make spills in the river much less likely. Traffic flow problems could be dealt with via design creativity in the tightest section. No build: Need to do something obviously but sometimes I think the main problem is really one of traffic law enforcement. If folks drove the correct and safe speed life would be better. Kenai River: Ridiculous number of bridges.
The Walls alternative is the best choice if it is constructed probably. It leaves the public driving along the only stretch of the Kenai River that they can now. This river is known world wide and this is the only section which you can travel and see the river. I feel you could have the Wall alternative and the River alternative together and still get the same results. The NO Build in not a good idea. I feel the road at the current location can be reworked with very little impact to the people who live here and to the public in general. Putting the new road back in it's current location will also save money in maintenance cost. The state would not have to keep up two roads.
The Kenai river is no alternative. Better left as is than to build a series of bridges across the river. The no build is a definite possibility. Kenai river walls has some possibility. The retaining walls can be built so as to not degrade the scenery too much, and widening the road would help.
None of these options bypasses Cooper Landing. No Build is not an option, the road needs to be rerouted.
These alternatives may be acceptable in part, and are certainly more preferable to any routing near Juneau Creek.
The Kenai River is a target just waiting. I don't care how you design it, that river is in danger. It will only take one fuel truck for disaster. We must move the highway away from the River. Furthermore, the community prefers not to have that traffic through it.
Are there issues and/or opportunities that, if addressed, could make any of the River/Through Town Alternatives more acceptable?
I can't think of any. I think of the homes and businesses built so close to the road through town. Probably built on actual highway right-of-way in some cases. And the people who live and have businesses between the highway and the river are already in a narrow situation. I thought a current aerial photo of the highway through Cooper Landing with the right-of-way superimposed would tell a story.
Neither route would or could be acceptable as designed
Add a safety path from Russian River to Quart Creek Drive.
As long as property owners are fairly compensated for the value of land they would lose for widening, I see no problem. Anyone who builds on or buys land that is and always has been on the only road, should realize that they might have to give some of it up at some point for expansion. I get tired of people whining about progress and expansion when they have knowingly settled in a place that is going to do just that. Buyer beware applies to most things, and property along this stretch of road is no exception.
Would be better to leave existing road as a frontage road
There is already a road through town; the existing highway. It's problems are obvious. River alternatives are band-aids.
I wasn't able to review the river alternatives fully due to a lack of RAM on my computer. But, if FWS is giving you flak because they'd rather see you eat up Forest Service lands, why don't you give Don Young a call and complain. If you build an expensive alternative to avoid FWS lands, the money should come out of their budget!
Maybe if the walls were decorated with some cheesy decorations, like Tudor & Lake Otis(?)
Too high a cost
Cost-Noise-Contamination to the Kenai River
Take out the corners and do not decrease the speed through there.
Could we just build the Kenai River bridge into an eight-mile-long Freeway viaduct clear over the town and river to the "other side?"
I want safe access to local business and public access to the river.
The best option is a scaled-back, less expensive version of the Kenai River Walls Alternative, something between the No-Build and Kenai River Walls Alternatives, which offers some improvements to the existing alignment. Can the price of the Kenai River Walls Alternate be reduced by eliminating some of the bridge replacements?
Pull out lanes, retain scenic views.
No, need to stay away from the Kenai River.
Through town would be fine with me as long as the traffic slows down to lessen danger to people in the area.
If I could be convinced that the habitat would not be negatively affected, and the traffic would have a safer route at the same time.
Many opportunities for partnerships with local residents and private property owners; helps to improve the economic life of the community; places burden of adaptation to those who can adapt easiest: humans. Could be an outstanding opportunity to demonstrate nationally how traffic could be limited (rather than expanded at expense of wilderness), made safe, economically stimulating, and all within a wilderness corridor.
If the route is going through town the speed limit would have to be reduced and that would cause traffic to back up during the summer. The drivers would be more likely to take risks and that would lead to increased accidents between vehicles, animals and people walking along the road.
Build pedestrian walkways along and across the roadway. Enforce the speed limit.
Too much heavy traffic for any town alternatives.
Stormwater runoff ought to be treated and or controlled so that water quality in the river is not further impacted by increasing traffic
Not really. You people are really eager to get the earthmovers rolling, so I expect we'll have to put up with the least bad choice that public outrage can force you to accept.
We really don't need more bridges over the Kenai. I am concerned also that the snow blowers are putting road salt and oils into Quartz Creek and The Kenai. Would really like to see this addresses and a study done to see what the impact is.
No. The business owners that I've talked with have been in favor of routing the through traffic completely around Cooper Landing. They recognize that the vast majority of their business comes from the local traffic - either local residents or tourists coming to fish the Upper Kenai or Russian Rivers. The through traffic just rolls through nonstop, most of them above the posted speed limit, which creates a dangerous traffic mix.
I am hopeful that the walls would be constructed in an environmentally responsible manner.
No Build could be made MUCH better with an ENFORCED and POSTED 35MPH speed limit from Sunrise to the Kenai River Bridge near Russian River Campground.
I believe that any chosen option should be enhanced with an increased budget for police patrol and signage during the summer to inform travelers of speed limits and pedestrian areas.
Not in my opinion, unless it takes the form of existing road improvements (such as pull off - parking lanes, public restrooms, picnic grounds) that are tacked onto another alternative, or saved for future "river-side" improvements some ten years down the line.
The Kenai River alternative is unacceptable due to additional bridges crossing the river.
Slower design speeds and posted speeds, - Consider elevating portions of the road along the river corridor to allow 2-lanes both direction with less overall footprint
Oh, I'd suggest prayer as the main ingredient. I'm serious. Also alcohol, massage, and prescription to whatever wisdom tradition you fancy. Gary Snyder as required reading, and all literature published by the National Scenic Byway Center in Minnesota. In the end, for all the engineering, and biology, it will not be science that totally answers this question, it will be more art of defining and blending highway design, scenic landscape, community, and natural systems, in the context of current perceptions of these values. That, and a rather political decision by DOT and the agencies. Again, I suggest prayer and alcohol as ways of making the through town alternatives work.
Look at previous 3R alternative. Some land may have changed. But it was a workable solution 10 years ago. Investigate a combination of these alternatives, and check design of slower mph road.
Anything to evade the congestion of the Cooper Landing business & residential area.
River Alternative: No hope or remedy to this false and manipulative alternative Wall Alternative: Good as presented.
Select the lowest possible design speed, even if necessary to apply for an exception. There should be sufficient justification for a lower design speed based on the need to maintain alignments through the archeology impacted areas and the unique recreational opportunities in the area. The current posted speed also is justification.
Walls: Use design creativity to solve the flow problems. Use low speed limits and enforcement to solve majority of the safety problems.
Adding parking and pull off spots along with the Kenai wall alternative would help congestion.
42 respondents replied "no" to this question.