Angela Rodell: Saying no is not a strategy for Juneau when it comes to transportation and access

By ANGELA RODELL

Juneau has developed a habit of confusing opposition with wisdom. For years, major transportation investments have been met with skepticism, delay, and, ultimately, a reflexive “no.”

The justification is almost always the same: the project is flawed, the benefits uncertain, the costs too high. Each objection may be defensible in isolation. Taken together, they reveal a deeper problem—short-term thinking that mistakes preservation for strategy and resistance for leadership.

Juneau is hard to get to. That is not rhetoric; it is a structural fact. Air travel is expensive and unreliable. The ferry system is underfunded and unpredictable. Internally, the city lacks redundancy and flexibility in how people and goods move. These constraints shape decisions about where people live, where employers invest, and whether families stay. Over time, they erode confidence in Juneau’s future as Alaska’s capital.

For decades, Juneau assumed it did not need to solve these problems because it was a government town. State jobs were considered permanent. Proximity to the capitol building was assumed to anchor people here. Roads, crossings, and even ferries were treated as optional because activity was presumed to be guaranteed. That assumption is no longer holding.

I think we have learned that government is not sticky. State jobs continue to migrate north. Federal jobs are consolidated or eliminated. Remote work has weakened the argument that Juneau must physically host as many government employees as it once did. Twenty years ago, Juneau had roughly 7,000 government jobs. Today, that number is closer to 6,500, and the decline has been steady enough to normalize, even as its effects accumulate.

Transportation sits at the center of this shift. The easier it is to move within Juneau and connect to the rest of the state, the more viable it becomes to build housing, diversify employment, and retain families. Transportation is not separate from affordability; it is one of its primary drivers. Limited access constrains housing supply, raises construction costs, and increases household expenses. A community that resists transportation investment while lamenting high costs of living is working at cross-purposes.

The recent debate around the Cascade Point ferry terminal illustrates the tension clearly. Advisory panels and public commenters have criticized the project as rushed, poorly communicated, and misaligned with local priorities. Those concerns deserve to be taken seriously. But there is a risk in how the conversation is framed. “External agendas” are often treated as inherently suspect—as if benefits only count when they originate locally or serve a narrow definition of use.

That framing is too small. External agendas can and do benefit Juneau. The continued operation of Kensington Mine is one example. Its success supports hundreds of jobs, diversifies the local economy, and reduces reliance on government or tourism employment. That economic activity exists because Juneau is connected—physically and logistically—to broader regional and global systems. Transportation that supports industry, freight, and statewide mobility is not a betrayal of local interests; it can be essential to sustaining them.

The real problem may not be that projects like Cascade Point lack value, but that the value is poorly explained—and judged through a process that is structurally skewed toward opposition. Those who attend public meetings are often self-selected, highly motivated, and more inclined to say no than to weigh long-term tradeoffs. That does not make their concerns illegitimate, but it does mean silence should not be mistaken for consensus, nor resistance for vision.

Juneau has become adept at identifying why something might not work, while spending far less time asking what happens if nothing changes. A second crossing is dismissed as too expensive. Expanded road connectivity is labeled unnecessary. Multimodal investments are treated as optional. Ferry improvements are endlessly debated. Each delay feels responsible. Collectively, they narrow Juneau’s future.

If Juneau wants to remain the capital, it must act like permanence is earned, not guaranteed. Capital cities invest in access, redundancy, and resilience. They plan for housing, schools, and workforce mobility. They accept that not every benefit is immediate and not every user is local. Saying no may feel safe, but safety is an illusion when the ground is slowly shifting beneath you.

Transportation is not the whole answer, but refusing to invest in it is a decision to accept decline. And that is a choice Juneau can no longer afford to make.

Angela Rodell is the former CEO of the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation.

Angela Rodell: Alaska’s budget problem isn’t the dividend — it’s fiscal honesty