Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Chena Riverwalk topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chena Riverwalk Phase 3 faces big cost and right-of-way hurdles; DOT, city and FAST Planning outline options
Summary
Engineers and FAST Planning told the Chena Riverfront Commission that permit limits, railroad negotiations and an elevated structure over floodplain have pushed the Chena Riverwalk Phase 3 estimate to roughly $7M; staff described lower-cost alternatives but said each has trade-offs in river access, right-of-way or ADA compliance.
City, DOT and FAST Planning staff briefed the commission on Jan. 28 on progress and key risks for Chena Riverwalk Phase 3, emphasizing a narrow corridor, permitting constraints and rising costs.
City engineer Bob Pristache said the project is constrained by an existing permit executed with the railroad and a 10-foot easement that limits horizontal room along the river. "The permit now is between the railroad and the City Of Fairbanks… the City pays $400 a year in a fee," Pristache said, adding that existing obligations include maintenance of a pedestrian bridge. He said the embankment design envisioned years ago became impractical where the corridor is narrow, which led designers to shift to an elevated structure.
Pristache presented engineering cross-sections and a cost estimate based on a 12-foot elevated structure with decking and contingencies that he said yields a base construction estimate of about $7,100,000 (land costs excluded). FAST Planning staff Jackson Fox said that amount raises fresh questions about who will commit the local match and maintenance: "The price tag has gone up significantly… I think the previous estimate… was $1,700,000 for an embankment design. And now we're at… $7,000,000 for this elevated walkway," Fox said.
Staff described two lower-cost alternatives: (1) an alignment that stays on existing DOT or city right-of-way and connects to existing asphalt paths, estimated at roughly $463,000 for the path segment but which does not provide riverside alignment; and (2) widening and upgrading other existing paths (a maintenance-friendlier, less-riverfront solution). Presenters cautioned that funding commitments attached to federal grants and permit obligations mean that altering scope can have consequences for existing commitments.
Commissioners pressed on safety and maintenance questions—clearing vegetation regularly for sight lines, responding to camping/remoteness concerns, winter snow-clearance logistics and earthquake risks for elevated decking. Presenters said negotiations are ongoing with Alaska Railroad over easement or sale options, FAST Planning will review match/maintenance options at upcoming technical and policy-board meetings, and local governments will need to decide whether the city, borough or a split of responsibilities will take on long-term maintenance.
No formal commission motion was taken; staff and FAST Planning will bring updates after railroad negotiations and at upcoming policy-committee meetings.
