05/09/2002 01:15 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
May 9, 2002
1:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Vic Kohring, Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Scott Ogan
Representative Drew Scalzi
Representative Peggy Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mary Kapsner
Representative Albert Kookesh
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
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."
- MOVED CSSSSB 226(FIN) am OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 226
SHORT TITLE:DESIGN OF HIGHWAY PROJECTS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) DONLEY
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
05/07/01 1621 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
05/07/01 1621 (S) TRA, FIN
01/14/02 1938 (S) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE
INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
01/14/02 1938 (S) TRA, FIN
02/12/02 (S) TRA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/12/02 (S) Moved CS(TRA) Out of
Committee
02/12/02 (S) MINUTE(TRA)
02/19/02 2221 (S) TRA RPT CS 3DP 2NR NEW TITLE
02/19/02 2221 (S) DP: COWDERY, TAYLOR, WARD;
02/19/02 2221 (S) NR: WILKEN, ELTON
02/19/02 2221 (S) FN FORTHCOMING
03/21/02 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
03/21/02 (S) Heard & Held
03/21/02 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/10/02 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
04/10/02 (S) Moved CS(FIN) Out of
Committee
MINUTE(FIN)
04/10/02 2707 (S) FIN RPT CS 5DP 3NR NEW TITLE
04/10/02 2707 (S) DP: DONLEY, KELLY, AUSTERMAN,
WILKEN,
04/10/02 2707 (S) WARD; NR: HOFFMAN, OLSON,
LEMAN
04/16/02 (S) RLS AT 10:30 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
04/16/02 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/18/02 2830 (S) FN1: (DOT)
04/22/02 (S) RLS AT 9:30 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
04/22/02 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
05/06/02 3185 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
05/06/02 3185 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
05/06/02 3185 (S) ADVANCED TO 3RD READING FLD
Y14 N6
05/06/02 3185 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING 5/7
CALENDAR
05/06/02 3182 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 2OR 5/6/02
05/07/02 3206 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSSSB
226(FIN)
05/07/02 3206 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1
UNAN CONSENT
05/07/02 3206 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED Y16 N2 E1 A1
05/07/02 3207 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD
READING
05/07/02 3207 (S) PASSED Y12 N6 E1 A1
05/07/02 3208 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) ADOPTED Y18
N- E1 A1
05/07/02 3208 (S) ELLIS NOTICE OF
RECONSIDERATION
05/08/02 3222 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD
READING
05/08/02 3222 (S) MOVED TO BOTTOM OF CALENDAR
05/08/02 3243 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y16
N3 E1
05/08/02 3243 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS
PASSAGE
05/08/02 3244 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/08/02 3244 (S) VERSION: CSSSSB 226(FIN) AM
05/09/02 3459 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
05/09/02 3459 (H) TRA
05/09/02 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
KRISTIE KEELE, Staff
to Senator Dave Donley
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 506
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 226 to the committee on behalf
of Senator Donley, sponsor.
DENNIS POSHARD, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, Alaska 9981-7898
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions pertaining to SB 226.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-14, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR VIC KOHRING called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:15 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Ogan, Wilson, Masek, and
Kohring. Representative Scalzi joined the meeting as it was in
progress.
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.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 1:29
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|