Legislature(2001 - 2002)
05/09/2002 01:15 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 226-DESIGN OF HIGHWAY PROJECTS CHAIR KOHRING announced that the matter before the committee was CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 226(FIN) am, "An Act relating to design of highway projects; and providing for an effective date." Number 0088 KRISTIE KEELE, Staff to Senator Dave Donley, Alaska State Legislature, presented SB 226 on behalf of Senator Donley, sponsor. She explained that it would require the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) to design and construct major upgrades and new roads to last longer. The timeline of a project's design life would begin when construction is projected to be completed, and would vary by the dollar volume of the project. Projects costing under $5 million would be required to be designed for anticipated traffic levels at least 10 years after completion; projects costing $5 million to $10 million would be designed for levels at least 20 years after completion; and those over $10 million would be designed for levels at least 25 years after completion. MS. KEELE pointed out that current federal regulations require federally funded major upgrades and new roads to be designed for at least 20 years of use, and bridges must be designed for 50 years of use; federal law doesn't prohibit longer periods of design life. She said DOT&PF currently requires a 20-year design life after completion of a project, but construction and right-of-way delays can result in a reduction of design life. If the design life of major projects - those over $10 million - is extended to 25 years, there should be less need for frequent road upgrades and construction-related traffic delays. Number 0214 MS. KEELE explained that the legislation was modified after discussions with DOT&PF staff to exclude maintenance projects and road projects outside of major metropolitan areas. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked why that was done. MS. KEELE answered that the bill also applies to federally funded roads. She yielded the second part of her answer to Dennis Poshard. Number 0250 DENNIS POSHARD, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, explained that the department had worked closely with Senator Donley in developing the bill to make sure he was getting what he wanted out of it: he was mostly concerned with metropolitan areas, which is where the problem he was addressing primarily exists. MR. POSHARD said the problem occurs when a project is built based on a particular traffic projection and then growth occurs at a rate that prevents the full design life from being realized before a new project is required to deal with traffic problems. He said the problem being addressed is not mainly the design of asphalt or actual construction. Rather, the bill is trying to promote longer-range traffic models for projects so they will last longer. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said it sounds like common sense and that [the department] should be doing that anyway. MS. KEELE gave the example of a road improvement after which, within five years, cars are backed up. That design did not last as long as it was anticipated to. Number 0411 MR. POSHARD added that for any kind of new construction or a major reconstruction, projects are designed to a 20-year design life anyway. But there are [instances] when a "smaller fix" is required. He told the committee that when there is a large project, it takes longer to implement the solution because of right-of-way issues and environmental regulations. On occasion, the department will use smaller projects designed to last maybe ten years to "carry you through" until a large project can be implemented. Number 0518 REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked if the short-fix option Mr. Poshard had just described would be affected by the bill. MR. POSHARD said the option would be affected slightly: for projects over $5 million, the department would not be allowed to use that "tool." However, it would probably not affect too many [of the smaller] projects. The bill would affect the big projects, those over $10 million, which would have to be designed for 25 years instead of the current 20. He said the question of what solution should be used is a philosophical one. Traffic engineers would say they want to have every tool available to them, no matter what the dollar value, but [when setting] policy, one can set any criteria desired. He said he felt Senator Donley's concern was that [the state] is doing too much construction of a smaller scale, and that projects are not lasting long enough. REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI expressed his support for the concept, and for the concept of the bill. He asked: If there were an extra five years [added to the life of projects], wouldn't there be a fiscal impact? He requested an estimate of the impact. MR. POSHARD replied that there would be an impact on individual projects, most likely an incremental growth. The difference in a 20-year project and a 25-year project would not be that great. He said it wasn't an operating-budget concern to the department. Number 0768 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK moved to report [CSSSSB 226(FIN) am] out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSSSSB 226(FIN) am was moved out of the House Transportation Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|