Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/19/1998 01:32 PM Senate TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 263 - SECONDARY ROADS
SENATOR JOHN TORGERSON, sponsor of SB 263, gave the following
summary of the measure. SB 263 recognizes secondary roads as a
separate category eligible for federal transportation funds for
road maintenance. Funds would be placed directly into that
category and then be disbursed according to a ranking system
developed by the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
(DOTPF). DOTPF's current ranking system is inadequate; secondary
roads do not score high enough on the list of maintenance
priorities to be paved. Examples of this problem can be seen in
every district in the state. DOTPF's continual response to
requests for maintenance of secondary roads is that when they score
high enough, they will be repaired, however the ranking system
prevents those roads from reaching the top of the list. Secondary
roads are defined in SB 263 as dirt and gravel roads. Although the
bill does not address any dollar amount, it reflects an
appropriation of about $20 million. SB 263 contains a sunset
provision after five years, therefore the five year cost will total
$100 million. After SB 263 sunsets, gravel roads will be ranked
amongst each other instead of against other highways and uses in
the state.
Number 053
SENATOR HALFORD asked how chip-sealed roads are categorized, since
they are not actually paved.
SENATOR TORGERSON said he considered writing standards into the
bill, but current secondary road standards seem to evade everyone,
are hypothetical at best, and can be changed at the discretion of
DOTPF staff. To illustrate the problem, Senator Torgerson said a
road in his district was slated to have a chip-seal covering,
estimated to cost an additional $150,000 to a current project.
Because of disputes and other factors, the cost escalated to $1.1
million. He felt everyone needs to know what a secondary road is
and said that if he knew all of the technical terms for chip-seal
or high-float, he would have included them in the bill. He
maintained that his constituents want to drive on a hard surface,
they do not care about the bells and whistles that go along with a
fully fledged large federal highway project. He noted the
definition of secondary road in the bill includes dirt and gravel
roads only.
CHAIRMAN WARD noted Senator Lincoln's presence.
Number 091
SENATOR GREEN asked whether SB 263 will supersede any other
projects and who will be sharing their pot of money to fund it.
SENATOR TORGERSON stated if the amount of federal funds does not
increase, he will advocate a reduction of an equal amount from
three appropriations currently made by the Legislature (the
National Highway System, the TRAC, and the Community Road Program).
He has already devised a formula to raise the $20 million. Alaska
might get an additional federal appropriation due to the
reauthorization of ISTEA. He estimated that DOTPF exceeded last
year's appropriation by about $280 million. He would like to see
some of those projects reclassified to free up $20 million for
gravel road paving. He stated he has not designed a ranking system
at this time.
SENATOR GREEN asked if most of these roads would be DOTPF
construction projects, or whether the boroughs would receive funds
from DOTPF and do the work.
SENATOR TORGERSON replied SB 263 applies to state highways. He
added that if projects such as the Juneau access road, the road to
Whittier, the Dalton Highway, the Denali Highway, and the Kashwitna
(ph) project are given a higher priority, the cost will be $700
million. He stated he does not oppose building new roads but
believes it is more important to fix existing roads.
Number 133
SENATOR LINCOLN commented that she receives repeated complaints
about the dust control problem on gravel roads in her district,
because of resulting health problems. It is especially problematic
for smaller communities because gravel is removed from the riverbed
and the sediment creates a very fine dust. She asked if that
concern is addressed in SB 263.
SENATOR TORGERSON replied the qualifications apply to any gravel
road irregardless of community size which would then be ranked by
DOTPF.
SENATOR LINCOLN questioned whether villages could also participate
in the municipal transfer provision under this legislation.
SENATOR TORGERSON said any gravel road qualifies and DOTPF would be
required to rank those roads higher if a local government wishes to
take ownership of the road.
SENATOR LINCOLN stated that as a member of the Deferred Maintenance
Task Force, she was glad to see the transfer provision.
SENATOR TORGERSON indicated that a substantial savings will occur
"down the road" if some of the roads are upgraded and then
transferred to local governments. He maintained he is taking a
leap of faith by believing that DOTPF will devise a fair ranking
system, but he believes it will, which is why he did not establish
a ranking system in the legislation itself.
Number 185
SENATOR GREEN asked what SB 263 accomplishes that cannot be
accomplished right now without legislation. SENATOR TORGERSON
stated the same thing could be done without legislation if the
Administration was willing to recognize that there are gravel roads
in the state that need paving. The Administration has recognized
the problem just this year, but only to the tune of $800,000 in
what is named the "Secondary Road Transfer Program."
SENATOR GREEN asked if the unimproved secondary road definition in
SB 263 is in statute elsewhere. SENATOR TORGERSON stated that he
created that definition.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if, according to the definition in SB 263,
Senator Torgerson's list of secondary roads needing improvement is
compatible with DOTPF's list. SENATOR TORGERSON did not know
whether DOTPF has a list, but repeated it would apply to any gravel
road. He explained that there are paved roads in the state that
are considered to be secondary roads, but SB 263 would set aside
money to pave gravel roads.
Number 214
MR. TOM BODECKER, City Manager of Soldotna, testified via
teleconference. He said the City of Soldotna generally supports SB
263 because it addresses a problem with gravel roads that has
resulted from the current system. Under the current standard, when
a request is made of DOTPF to pave a gravel road, a cost estimate
is completed and that number is plugged into the formula. In some
rural areas, the cost estimates encompass a grand scheme plan to
improve several roads. The high cost then lowers the project's
ranking, and nothing gets done.
[MR. BODECKER'S TESTIMONY WAS INTERRUPTED BY POOR TRANSMISSION.]
MR. BOYD BROWNFIELD, Deputy Commissioner of DOTPF, stated DOTPF
generally supports the concept of SB 263, but believes several
areas need clarification. Section 1(a) begins by establishing the
adoption of regulations formalizing secondary roads as a category
within Alaska's highway system. The section also contains a
subcategory that pertains to unimproved secondary roads, and
instructs DOTPF to formulate a ranking system for those roads.
Section 1(b) then relates to secondary roads again, and aims toward
the ownership of a municipality or local authorities, and then
instructs that a priority shall be given to unimproved secondary
roads if a local request for transfer is made. He requested a
chance to work with the sponsor to clarify the language.
MR. BROWNFIELD explained that Section 1(d) defines unimproved
secondary roads as dirt and gravel roads. DOTPF feels a road does
not have to be dirt or gravel to be unimproved and suggests the
definition include roads that may have some asphaltic treatment on
it. The asphaltic treatment is also referred to as chip sealed and
high float. Those types of roads in disrepair should be qualified
as unimproved roads. He noted DOTPF is already in the process of
establishing a separate local roads category in its project
evaluation board process which should address this same issue.
MR. BROWNFIELD pointed out DOTPF has a regulation that defines
secondary roads (17AAC.05.030). He concluded by saying in any
event, DOTPF supports the concept of SB 263.
SENATOR GREEN referred to language on page 1, line 7, which reads:
"Standards adopted for secondary roads under this subsection need
not conform to those adopted by the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials" and asked if that language
applies to improvements to secondary roads now.
MR. BROWNFIELD answered DOTPF has the ability to create new
standards now that would be accepted by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHA). If federal funding is used, DOTPF has to
touch base with the FHA somewhere along the line first.
Number 294
MR. BODECKER continued his testimony via teleconference. One
problem that prevents secondary road paving is that secondary roads
tend to be designed for paving at a very high standard which
results in a cost-benefit ratio that leaves those roads low on the
list. He thought the idea of establishing a construction standard
for secondary roads is important. He maintained that although the
problem could be resolved through DOTPF's regulatory process, it
has never occurred.
Number 314
SENATOR GREEN informed committee members she prepared an amendment
that includes gravel, chip sealed, or inadequately paved roads in
SB 263.
CHAIRMAN WARD asked SENATOR TORGERSON if he wished to respond to
the comments made by Deputy Commissioner Brownfield.
SENATOR TORGERSON felt Deputy Commissioner Brownfield raised three
issues of substance. In response to any confusion about secondary
roads versus unimproved secondary roads in Section 1(a), a
definition of unimproved secondary roads is included in the bill.
Senator Torgerson said this issue goes to the heart of the problem.
DOTPF says it has defined secondary roads in regulation, but if the
room were filled with city managers and people in the road
construction business, no one could say what a secondary road is if
asked to build one because the description is discretionary to
DOTPF. The Legislature could adopt the standards used in the
regulation, but the problem is the discretion DOTPF uses. Local
governments cannot have an engineer visit their localities to
review a project request, inform the local governments they are
getting one thing, and then have the plan change completely.
Regarding the asphalt and chip seal roads, SENATOR TORGERSON said
he does not object to including both, but the object of SB 263 is
to take care of roads that have never been paved. He pointed out
his Borough has no paved secondary roads. He was not sure how many
roads are chip sealed, but he assumed their inclusion will divide
the pot up further.
SENATOR TORGERSON stated DOTPF's Commissioner said DOTPF was
looking at other ways to rank secondary roads several years ago.
He felt if SB 263 spurs DOTPF along, that is fine, but he did not
give that statement much credence.
SENATOR TORGERSON said DOTPF's ability to create new regulations is
what scares him about the process and is the reason he wants to put
standards in statute. He said he talked this over with federal
officials. Alaska would have to go through a process to amend the
STIP, which requires a public hearing process and other things.
Senator Torgerson pointed out that during previous DOTPF testimony
he was told that federal money could not be used to upgrade gravel
roads with more gravel, but federal officials said otherwise.
Number 356
JIM SWING, Public Works Director of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough,
testified on behalf of the Borough administration and the
Department of Public Works. The Mat-Su Assembly has not had the
opportunity to review either SB 263 or SB 264. The Road Advisory
Board will be reviewing both bills tonight. The Borough
administration is in favor of SB 263 but would like to see chip
sealed or inadequately paved roads, that do not meet the standards
established under this section, included in the definition. The
Borough administration is interested in SB 263 from the standpoint
of quality of life regarding paving state roads, and is also
interested in taking ownership of some state roads, if improved to
acceptable standards which SB 263 allows and encourages. He
suggested soliciting local government participation when
establishing standards because most local governments have
standards of their own and could be of assistance.
MR. OCIE ADAMS, Secretary of the Local Road Service Advisory Board
for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, stated he agreed with Mr. Swing
regarding the definition of an unimproved road, and expressed
concern that no standards are actually addressed in SB 263. He
questioned whether state or local standards would be enforced. He
stated the Advisory Board would be discussing the bill tonight and
would provide the Legislature with written communication in the
form of a resolution.
CHAIRMAN WARD stated he would hold SB 263 in committee to allow
Senators Green and Torgerson to work on a committee substitute,
including Senator Green's proposed amendment.
SENATOR GREEN maintained she is not trying to interfere with
Senator Torgerson's purpose, however she believes it is important
that attention be given to those roads that were sealed 20 or 25
years ago and are now essentially bare.
Number 422
SENATOR LINCOLN referred to the definition of unimproved secondary
road, and asked if roads that were asphalt or chipsealed but have
been washed out would be classified as secondary roads rather than
unimproved secondary roads.
SENATOR TORGERSON replied that paved roads can be secondary roads.
He said his definition only includes dirt or gravel roads because
including asphalt roads will increase the pieces of the pie. He
would oppose including chip-sealed roads if their inclusion means
gravel roads will not get paved which was his primary purpose in
introducing SB 263. CHAIRMAN WARD agreed with Senator Torgerson.
SENATOR HALFORD pointed out the issue is further confused by the
fact that primary roads can be gravel roads, such as the Haul Road.
SENATOR TORGERSON added the word "unimproved" is in the eyes of the
beholder also.
CHAIRMAN WARD repeated his request that Senator Green work with the
sponsor to prepare a committee substitute.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|