This article is extremely over-biased towards the "no road" viewpoints. All of the links go to anti-road websites, and the entire article (except for a VERY brief mention) is negative aspect of the road. The positive aspects need to be fully listed to bring this article to a neutral state. Until that point in time, this article should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
There isn't a single positive viewpoint in the entire article. I think the road counter points need to be mentioned, such as the aging of the ferry system (as well as it's service decline and budget) and the debate over capitol access.
there is no talk of the radical environmentalist legal attacks against any development in Southeast Alaska's Tongass National Forest. The money that funds groups such as earth justice and seacc comes from granting agencies who have a clearly defined anti-development agenda. They come at the issue with a "we just want to work with everyone" approach, but they are not genuine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The external links are all extremely anti-road with no counter opinions, statements or facts.
Bob Unferth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobunf (talk • contribs) 21:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- It wouldn't be so bad if it were limited to this article. However, the same biased perspective was added to numerous related articles.RadioKAOS (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)