One good reason to require planning on road projects is to limit the waste of federal money and prevent state politicians from throwing tens of millions or hundreds of millions at pet projects.

One of the issues in the federal rejection of Alaska’s Statewide Transportation Improvement Program concerns the handling of one of Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s favorite pets, the so-called West Susitna Access Road.

But it appears that the federal regulators have not gotten to the bottom of the issue and don’t understand the shell game being played.

It is more than generous to refer to the planning on this project as slipshod.

The version of the project that popped into the STIP last summer was thrown together without real analysis or reliable cost estimates.

It had been a project of the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, envisioned as a 110-mile access road to promote mining. Some estimates put the cost at $450 million, but the ultimate price could be much higher because detailed engineering work has not been done.

Last summer, the Dunleavy administration decided to disguise the cost of the project and use part of the federal windfall in highway dollars to pretend it was no longer a single road project, but two projects.

Now it would be a 15-mile road followed by a 95-mile road. That would make the 95-mile AIDEA road a lot cheaper.

The first 15 miles of the road and a 2,160-foot bridge over the Susitna River would henceforth be a state project, to be mainly funded by the federal government.

The other 95 miles would become less expensive for AIDEA because it would start on the far bank of the Susitna River.

Transportation Commissioner Ryan Anderson revealed the change in a July 27 press release, which said the Dunleavy administration had inserted the first 15 miles of the road and the Susitna bridge into the STIP to promote recreation with a new road.

Everyone likes recreation. He claimed there was a new focus for the project.

“The newly proposed West Susitna Access project will connect the Matanuska Valley, and all of Alaska, to recreational opportunities along the Susitna River, and to the west,” Anderson said in his press release. “In Alaska, one of our greatest resources is the outdoors, and improving access to the outdoors supports our economic vitality.”

It was dishonest to call this “newly proposed.” It was dishonest to say this was a recreation road, not a mining road. It would have been honest to say this was a way to make the mining road appear to be far less expensive. The state did not seek public comment in advance and did not have enough information to list the cost.

On July 28, AIDEA joined in this deception and announced that it was thrilled to learn that its road was 15 miles shorter and did not need a Susitna bridge. AIDEA said its “separate project” would advance access to several potential mine sites.

The mining exploration companies, fully aware of this state shell game, liked the idea of maing the mining road appear cheaper.

“On July 27, 2023, DOT&PF announced plans to include the first 15 miles of the WSAR, (west Susitna Access Road) including a major bridge over the Susitna River, within the draft '2024-2027 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program' with funding set aside for construction to begin in 2025, pending permitting,” U.S. Gold Mining said in a press release. The press release also noted that Dunleavy and Anderson had visited its potential mine site.

The Susitna bridge would be 2,160 feet long. No one really knows how much it will cost. No one really knows either how much the road to the Susitna River will cost as the detailed analysis has not taken place.

Which brings us to the STIP and the snap decision by the Dunleavy administration to make this road a priority for “recreation.”

Federal highway regulators, in rejecting the state STIP, cited the West Susitna project as one of many problems.

The state description of the West Susitna Access Road said it would be funded with money set aside for bridges. But the state description did not mention anything about a bridge and therefore could not be funded, they said.

The state said the information in the STIP about the 15-mile section of the West Susitna Access Road “implied” that a bridge was needed.

Federal highway officials responded that this appears to resolve the problem. The slapdash approach that produced a proposal for bridge funding without mentioning a bridge is the least of the problems.

What the federal officials missed is the underlying boondoggle about the mining road rebranded as a recreation road. The financial figures in the STIP for the West Susitna project are not realistic as no one has bothered to do the precise calculations and research.

The state claims that the first 15 miles of the road and the Susitna bridge will cost $72.8 million and require no funding after 2027. This does not even qualify as guesswork.

Meanwhile, the Dunleavy administration has given the Legislature a different set of numbers, saying it needs $24.5 million for the road and a boat launch.

NO WORD YET: The state transportation department has yet to respond to my request for a list of the road projects it has agreed to remove from the STIP. Perhaps a legislator will get this list and send it to me.

RELEASED TO PUBLIC: It should have happened sooner, but the Alaska Permanent Fund Corp. released Trustee Paper No. 10 Friday on its website. Here is the paper. I’ll have more on this in days to come. Alaska needs a statewide discussion about the future of the fund that goes beyond the dividend dilemma.

Your contributions help support independent analysis and political commentary by Alaska reporter and author Dermot Cole. Thank you for reading and for your support. Either click here to use PayPal or send checks to: Dermot Cole, Box 10673, Fairbanks, AK 99710-0673.

Write me at dermotmcole@gmail.com