The Bridge to Nowhere has become as famous as the Brooklyn Bridge, only no one has tried to sell it yet. It has become a symbol of pork barrel spending and an issue in the Presidential campaign. Let’s take a look at the history of the bridge and the money that was allocated for it. It was used, but not in the way you may think.

Republican Vice Presidential candidate and Alaskan Governor, Sarah Palin has been saying over and over again that she said no to the bridge, which would have linked the residents of Ketchikan which is a community of about 7,500 to Gravina Island which has a population of about 50, but more importantly the Ketchikan Airport. The bridge was to replace the current ferry, which is the only way to get to the island.

The bridge was estimated to cost $398 million and this caused opposition, but the first opposition came from outside Alaska. Now, here is where the time line comes into play. The bill that had the allocation for the bridge was passed by the Senate on October 20, 2005 by a vote of 98 to 1. But on November 16, 2005 Congress removed the allocation for the bridge, but did not change the amount of money being allocated to Alaska. Sarah Palin was running for Governor of Alaska when on September 20, 2006, almost a year after the allocation was removed, she visited Ketchikan and stated that the bridge was essential. It was not until 2007 that the Governor abandoned the plan. In other words, even after Congress removed the bridge from the allocations, she still supported its construction, until after the election. The funds were there and they could be use for any project, since they were not earmarked for the bridge specifically.

So where did the money go ? Some of the money was used to build a road in Ketchikan. And where did the road go? To the bridge that was never built. So now Ketchikan has a road to nowhere. Why ? Because the contracts were signed before Sarah Palin became Governor and she felt obligated to honor them. Now, the city of Ketichian could have made much better use of the money. And the same contractor could have been used for many of the projects, leaving the contractor satisfied and the money put to constructive use.

Let’s face it, these types of allocations are not going to disappear. What needs to be done is a change to the system. They should not be attached to bills that are pretty certain to pass. They should be considered separately, each on their own merit. If the Senators and Congressmen have to make their requests public, they will take more care in what they are asking for.