Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/29/1998 01:05 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
April 29, 1998
1:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative William K. (Bill) Williams, Chairman
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative John Cowdery
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Albert Kookesh
MEMBERS ABSENT
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 263(FIN) am
"An Act relating to secondary roads and to the statewide
transportation improvement program; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 263
SHORT TITLE: SECONDARY ROADS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TORGERSON, Pearce, Sharp
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/27/98 2318 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/27/98 2318 (S) TRA, FIN
2/03/98 (S) TRA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
2/03/98 (S) MINUTE(TRA)
2/04/98 2396 (S) COSPONSOR: SHARP
2/12/98 (S) TRA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
2/12/98 (S) MINUTE(TRA)
2/19/98 (S) TRA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
2/19/98 (S) MINUTE(TRA)
3/12/98 (S) TRA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
3/12/98 (S) MINUTE(TRA)
3/19/98 (S) TRA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
3/19/98 (S) MINUTE(TRA)
3/20/98 2915 (S) TRA RPT CS 2DP 1NR SAME TITLE
3/20/98 2915 (S) DP: WARD, GREEN NR: WILKEN
3/20/98 2915 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS (DOT)
3/27/98 (S) FIN AT 8:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
4/01/98 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
4/02/98 3111 (S) FIN RPT CS 4DP 2NR NEW TITLE
4/02/98 3111 (S) DP: PEARCE, SHARP, TORGERSON, DONLEY;
4/02/98 3111 (S) NR: PARNELL, ADAMS
4/02/98 3111 (S) PREVIOUS FN APPLIES (DOT)
4/07/98 (S) RLS AT 11:25 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
4/07/98 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
4/08/98 3199 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/8/98
4/08/98 3200 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
4/08/98 3200 (S) MOTION TO ADOPT FIN CS
4/08/98 3201 (S) HELD W/CS MOTION PNDG TO 4/14
CALENDAR
4/14/98 3244 (S) HELD W/CS MOTION PNDG TO 4/15
CALENDAR
4/15/98 3273 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
4/15/98 3273 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
4/15/98 3274 (S) FAILED TO ADVANCE TO 3RD Y14 N5 E1
4/15/98 3274 (S) THIRD READING 4/16 CALENDAR
4/16/98 3296 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 263(FIN) AM
4/16/98 3297 (S) PASSED Y15 N5
4/16/98 3297 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
4/16/98 3297 (S) DUNCAN NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
4/17/98 3345 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
4/17/98 3346 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
4/18/98 3071 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/18/98 3072 (H) TRANSPORTATION
4/29/98 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
MARY JACKSON, Legislative Assistant
to Senator John Torgerson
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 514
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2828
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Senator Torgerson,
sponsor of CSSB 263(FIN) am.
THOMAS BRIGHAM, Director
Division of Statewide Planning
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801-7898
Telephone: (907) 465-4070
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and answered questions
on SB 263.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-21, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN WILLIAM K. (BILL) WILLIAMS called the House Transportation
Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Williams, Cowdery,
Sanders, Elton and Kookesh. Representatives Hudson and Masek
arrived at 1:10 p.m. and 1:12 p.m., respectively.
SB 263 - SECONDARY ROADS
Number 0080
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said the committee would hear CSSB 263(FIN) am
"An Act relating to secondary roads and to the statewide
transportation improvement program; and providing for an effective
date," sponsored by Senator Torgerson.
Number 0120
MARY JACKSON, Legislative Assistant to Senator John Torgerson,
Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee to testify.
She informed the committee that the bill before them is in two
sections. Section 1 deals with the Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP), which was amended in Senate Finance.
Section 2 is the initial bill, which deals with the secondary roads
program that Senator Torgerson felt the legislature needed to
pursue as a state.
MS. JACKSON said that Section 2 is Senator Torgerson's primary
focus. She said the purpose of this bill is simple and explained
that there are people in the state of Alaska who have enjoyed the
privilege of being a resident of the state of Alaska who have lived
on unimproved graveled roads, in some cases, since statehood. She
said, "We have not been pursuing any active pursuit of developing
or improving those roads." She said the federal Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) program is under a process of
reauthorization, and the state of Alaska appears to be able to be
the recipient of somewhere between $80-120 million of additional
funds over and above what they currently receive. Senator
Torgerson felt that it was an appropriate (indisc.) to use some of
those funds to put them to award the unimproved roads. She said,
"The initial was graveled roads that was amended in Senate
Transportation to include terminology called 'cold asphaltic, which
I know as chip seal, but apparently cold asphaltic is now (indisc).
That has been extended to include those roads as well. But the
clue is unimproved, graveled, or cold asphaltic roads. The intent
is to allocate up to $20 million annually for five years. And
obviously it's all subject to legislative appropriation." She
indicated she would be happy to answer any questions from the
committee.
Number 0319
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY asked, "What was the terminology used
for chip seal?"
MS. JACKSON replied, cold asphaltic.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated he thinks that might be recycled
asphalt. He referred back to the bill and said, "They were going
to change the point system, as I understand, based on the traffic.
Would that, for instance, would they consider the road system say,
for instance, a bridge in the Committee Chairman's district. I
understand there's about 400,000 people a year would use that
possibly. Would that fit under that category?"
MS. JACKSON replied that it fits into Section 1 of this bill. She
indicated that Section 1 is the STIP, which is currently not in
statute, and Section 1 defines that there are three categories in
the STIP: 1) National Highway System (NHS), 2) Trails and
Recreation Access for Alaska (TRAAK), and 3) Community
Transportation Program (CTP). She said many bridges are under the
CTP and Section 1 addresses the traffic count only in the CTP. If
a bridge were in the CTP, that traffic would be counted as the bill
is currently written.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if the priority should be based on the
use.
MS. JACKSON said, "Under Section 1, yes." She said it would only
be for the CTP. As the bill is currently written, one of the
factors for the ranking is a 20 percent traffic count.
Number 0470
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON said his understanding is that the bill
started out without Section 1 and later it was added. He said he
would like to know what the other factors are in determining
priorities. He said one of the things that bothers him is that
strictly using volume leaves out a lot of other important factors
such as, "What does this do for economic development? What does
this do for public safety?" He asked, "Could you tell me what else
is involved when they determine the prioritization and what happens
when you say that 20 percent of the priority must be volume only?"
MS. JACKSON replied that she believes there are 15 categories that
are ranked or considered. She said the existing ranking system is
approximately 3 percent for the traffic count and if it goes up to
20 percent, then it will mean an adjustment on the other 14 ranking
systems. She said she does not know how that would be
accomplished. Presumably the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities (DOT/PF) will have to review that in their rating
system.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he is uncomfortable saying that it will
be 20 percent without knowing what the effect is going to be on the
other priorities and how it will be done. He said he has a real
problem with that portion of the bill.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said he will not let the bill out of committee
until that portion of the bill is worked on to find out how it
affects everyone.
MS. JACKSON noted the original amendment that was placed by the
Senate Finance committee indicated a 40 percent traffic volume
level, which was amended on the Senate floor to 20 percent.
Number 0670
THOMAS BRIGHAM, Director, Division of Statewide Planning,
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, came before the
committee to testify. He referred to page 1, lines 7-8 and said
Section 1 provides for three categories: national highway system,
trails and recreational access, and community transportation and
said that is, in fact, the way the system is currently set up. He
said DOT/PF is concerned about what they call their secondary state
highways and that improvements are generally not being funded. He
indicated that the department will be going out with a public
review of a perspective secondary state highway system. It's
DOT/PF's observation that the current system seems to work
reasonably well for national highway system roots and community
roads that are important to a community, but one of the categories
that is basically being left out is state-owned secondary highways.
He said if this bill moves forward, they would request that a
fourth category such as secondary highways or state highways be
added to allow for that addition of that program.
MR. BRIGHAM referred to page 2, lines 1-2, which reads:
...in accordance with the process and standards established by
the department by regulation,...
MR. BRIGHAM said DOT/PF is in favor of regulating transportation
projects because they believe they have a reasonably good system
and putting it in regulation would provide more stability. He said
there are also regulations called for in Section 2 of the bill and
noted that the cumulative fiscal impact is approximately $100,000.
He stated that it takes a fair amount of effort to get regulations
promulgated and adopted and pointed out that there is a small
fiscal impact. He indicated that the department generally
estimated that any new regulatory effort is around $50,000. He
indicated if the department does not have a fiscal note in, that
they will have to submit one.
Number 0915
MR. BRIGHAM referred to page 2, lines 14-16, which reads:
...In determining the priority of each community
transportation project, the department shall determine at
least 20 percent of the ranking of the project based on the
volume of use of the facility that is the...
He said that part is probably the most controversial aspect of SB
263. He referred to a handout in the committee's packets entitled,
"Top 250 ADTs (non-NHS routes)" and said it not a ranking, but a
rank order of road segments in the state off the national highway
system by traffic volume. He said the routes listed on the handout
would be in the competition in the CTP ranking. He noted that the
system is broken into segments of routes because each segment
typically has a different traffic volume.
Number 1040
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON interjected and asked what is the
primary basis for the listing Mr. Brigham just addressed. He asked
what "ADT" means.
MR. BRIGHAM replied, "average daily traffic."
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said, "Okay, so, if we're looking at volume,
this is the measurement that you're relating to the committee?"
MR. BRIGHAM answered in the affirmative. He said they are for non-
national highway segments. If it included the NHS, there would be
a whole lot ahead of this because those tend to be the highest
volume. For example, Egan Drive in Juneau has very high volumes,
but most of it is on the NHS. He noted that the proposed
legislation calls for 20 percent of the weight applied to traffic
volume on non-NHS facilities. He told the committee the list shows
the volumes which are raw and unmodified. He noted that the bulk
of the top 250 on the list are in Anchorage and there's a sizeable
number of Juneau pieces, and also a sizeable number of Fairbanks
pieces, but not much of anyone else. He said the way the bill is
currently written would also apply to remote/Bush roads. He said
DOT/PF's view is that traffic volume is basically irrelevant. When
it comes to ranking a project in the Bush, there isn't any. The
project isn't built to serve traffic, it's built to get some kind
of a decent road, for example, to a sewage lagoon so the "honey
buckets" don't slop over and give everyone hepatitis. He said the
whole point of the project is completely different. He said if the
desire of the committee is to improve this bill, he would urge the
committee to exclude remote/Bush projects from the traffic volume
criteria. He indicated that he feels it's the only reasonable
thing to do.
MR. BRIGHAM said DOT/PF tried to get a quick sense of what the
impact of the 20 percent would be and he referred to another
handout entitled"Effects of SB 263 on Community Transportation
Program Project Scores and Ranking" in the committee's packet. He
said the results are pretty conservative and their quick analysis
suggested that most of the Anchorage projects would receive
virtually all of the possible traffic points. It depends on how
the scale is set. He said if you look around the state, the
Anchorage links have a lot more than anyone else, which would boost
the Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (AMATS)
minimum allocation. He said, "I think the $6 million we show here
in point number 2 is fairly conservative, my guess is, especially
when -- if Anchorage sort of caught on and advanced more projects.
Since that's an average over six years, it would tend to go up by
more than that. Fairbanks actually did surprising well. In the
first four years they were up by about $5 million a year. Juneau,
even though there are a number of Juneau high traffic links based
on what projects are actually in the mix right now during the next
six years or so, Juneau stayed about the same. Mat-Su, it depended
a great deal on which parts of Mat-Su you're looking at. The
higher density parts, Palmer and Wasilla, did okay. The lower
density parts of Mat-Su did not and would probably lose funding.
And then, which would come as no great surprise, the rural and
remote areas would get significantly less funding. So it's pretty
much, I think, as you would expect, is what our analysis suggests.
This is really a policy call; it's a judgment call."
MR. BRIGHAM said DOT/PF believes the current scoring is pretty well
balanced. He said if you look at needs statewide, they try to do
a decent job of balancing the needs and the low traffic volume,
more rural communities with those in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and
Juneau. He said if the committee feels the scoring is not alright
or if they want to push more money toward the higher traffic volume
areas, then this would be one way to do it. He said, "As you can
see, 20 percent - it's not completely, it doesn't completely tip
everything, except in the real low volume remote and Bush areas and
I think that would need a fix. It would definitely send more money
to Anchorage and Fairbanks, and I would say in the long run,
probably to Juneau, as well. With other places it's either kind of
status quo or probably less funding." He advised the committee if
Anchorage is concerned about the amount of money that's going in
the AMATS pot, AMATS can bring more projects forward, there are
ways to get those projects to score better, which will drive up the
AMATS pot without putting this high traffic volume spin on the rest
of the state. In conclusion, he feels there are ways to address
the AMATS allocation issue without affecting the rest of the state
as dramatically as this would.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked, "When you came up with this here, did you
us this information?"
MR. BRIGHAM replied in the affirmative stating that they used the
current traffic volumes and redid their criteria and the criteria
sheet based on establishing a new criteria that was purely traffic
volume was weighted at 20 percent of the total weight, which would
be about a 60-point criterion. He said, "The most of any of the
criteria now, about 25 points, which is about 10 percent. The
safety, for example, is weighted at about 10 percent." He noted
they have a criterion that is really a surrogate for cost benefit
and it includes cost, length and traffic. Therefore, as traffic
goes up, the points go up; as cost goes up, your points go down.
It's a cost-effectiveness substitute. He told the committee that
they added an additional criterion, which would be worth 20 percent
of the total value and they looked at the ADT from the same
database and developed a rough idea of what that would do to scores
and developed the six conclusions.
MR. BRIGHAM stated that there are a number of areas of the state
that would not be funded, or they would see their funding go down
fairly dramatically as a result of the 20 percent. He said they
would advise against it because he feels it would create more
unhappiness as a result of this.
Number 1550
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK referred to the ranking systems DOT/PF
used for CTPs and asked Mr. Brigham what other types of ranking
systems they use besides the ADT.
MR. BRIGHAM said there are 15 other criteria outlined in the Rural
and Urban Streets and Roads Project Evaluation Criteria in the
committee's packets.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked if SB 263, as currently written,
complies with the federal rules and standards that DOT/PF is
currently using.
MR. BRIGHAM replied in the affirmative. He said they don't see
anything that would be out of synch with the federal regulations.
This legislation is basically an adjustment of the current system
that would be applied to the criteria they currently use.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked, "Is it possible to write to regulations
under SB 263 to establish uniform construction standards throughout
the state because we're so diverse in the areas? Some regions may
have a lot more rain than other areas of the state. How would the
department meet those regulations?"
MR. BRIGHAM commented that Representative Masek raised a good
point. He said his sense is that they could write regulations that
would be general enough that they would be applicable across the
state and generally would set a base standard for unimproved
secondary roads. He said it's a fair amount of work, which is why
there would be some fiscal impact. He indicated he feels they
could do it. Inevitably, some people would say that the standard
is too high for their area, even though it may be a reasonable
standard on a statewide basis. Mr. Brigham pointed out that they
have a project in the STIP called "road resurfacing and transfer,"
which does what Section 2 of the bill calls for whereby they
receive candidate projects from communities to fix up a state route
and transfer that route to the local community. He noted that it
started out slowly last year and advised that they had a couple of
routes in Nome that were submitted and qualified. This year, they
have one in Mat-Su, Kenai, and Fairbanks and couple in Nome. He
said the demand they have had fits within the $2-3 million that
they have allocated to that particular STIP project; therefore,
they have responded to the level of demand that has come forward to
them thus far. He said they have not seen $20 million worth of
demand in the form of roadways that communities would take
ownership and maintenance of if DOT/PF fixed them up. He indicated
his sense is that it may be appropriated and that it would be
operating in the range of $3-6 million a year based on what they've
seen thus far.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK how many secondary roads in the state need to
be upgraded.
MR. BRIGHAM said he did not know. He said as a result of history,
the state owns a lot of roads in the state that would be county or
local roads in other states and there are a lot of miles that would
be a candidate for this upgrading program. He does not see a
problem with finding candidates. He said the problem is finding a
community that wants to own the roads and pay for their ongoing
upkeep.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked if the legislature allowed DOT/PF to
appropriate $20 million from federal funds for secondary roads,
will that violate the criteria established by the federal
government, and perhaps make Alaska ineligible for federal funds?
MR. BRIGHAM advised the committee that Alaska has an exemption
under Section 118(f) of the ISTEA law that allows Alaska to spend
money on virtually any public road. He said looking at how the
criteria and scoring process works, it's easier for a higher
volume, more important road to qualify than it is for a subdivision
road. It's virtually impossible for a local subdivision road to
score in the running and he feels that it's appropriate because
it's a local responsibility. From a strict federal regulation
point of view, based on the flexibility that Alaska has, he doesn't
believe that this would run a foul of that. He indicated that
DOT/PF would provide a category in the STIP and they would try to
make sure that that category is large enough to fund whatever comes
forward, which has been approximately $1-2 million a year. He said
they have no problem with the idea and noted that they do it right
now, and as long as the language is permissive, that would be fine.
He indicated that $20 million is probably more than they would use
in a year, but it's nice to set the limit high.
Number 1908
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON referred to the matrix handed out and asked
how would the provisions in SB 263 fit into the matrix. He asked
if it would be a separate category, or if they would have a
separate matrix for the categories in the bill.
MR. BRIGHAM explained that the bill would change that matrix. They
would probably add an additional category that would be for traffic
volume only.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said, "So it would elevate the projects
essentially targeted in the bill above all of the standard
measurements that you have in the matrix."
MR. BRIGHAM replied that it would make traffic volume the most
important standard in the matrix funding element by a factor of
more than two.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON commented that one of the most important
aspects of building roads and allocating money to roads is the kind
of economic wash you get from that expenditure. If it operates to
open up new subdivisions, for example, in the Anchorage area that
creates new opportunities for new housing or if it opens up a road
to the potential of a mind development, or things of this nature.
He said he is trying to figure out what the public good is, other
than perhaps shifting a greater portion of whatever funds they have
available to the traffic volume streets, which would probably be
Anchorage Fairbanks and Juneau at the expense of rural Alaska.
MR. BRIGHAM said the funding would shift. He said even 20 percent
is enough of a difference in the waiting that you would see a shift
in the funding. He referred to the "Rural and Urban Streets and
Roads Project Evaluation Criteria" handout, number 11, and said
their preference would be to possibly increase the weight of that
criteria, which is the cost, length, and traffic criterion from a
weight of 4 to a maximum of 5, rather than go to a whole new
criterion.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked how long would it take and how much
would it cost to put traffic counts up for secondary roads that may
need upgrading.
MR. BRIGHAM explained that there is a ongoing traffic counting
program that counts at least once every three years virtually every
road and street on the connected roadway system and the major
pieces that are off the system. He advised that they do not count
village streets because it's pretty much an irrelevant issue. He
said the cost of going out there and counting very low volumes of
traffic doesn't tell them anything and that is why if something
like this were to go forward, Bush/remote sites should be excluded.
He pointed out that the remote criteria they use is different than
the rural and urban criteria because the whole rationale for doing
those kinds of projects is different. He said it would be
expensive to fly out to the Bush to do the traffic counts, and
DOT/PF feels that it would be pointless and a waste of money.
Number 2208
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK gave an example to the committee. For
instance, if the Matanuska-Susitna Borough recommended to upgrade
ten secondary roads, and if this bill passed and DOT/PF only went
out every three years, she wanted to know how long it would take
and how much it would cost to get the traffic counts on ten roads
that were identified in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
MR. BRIGHAM said if they had current traffic counts, it would not
be a problem. If, for some reason, the road was not on the
counting system, it would cost a small increment of additional
money because they would have to fly out to a community that is not
on the road system. He said if they could drive to the site, the
additional expense is not too bad.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK noted that there's nothing in the bill that
addresses the rural areas.
MR. BRIGHAM pointed out that Section 1 of the bill only addresses
traffic and location is not a factor, which DOT/PF believes is a
problem.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Mr. Brigham if DOT/PF is in the process of
(indisc.) their STIP regulations.
MR. BRIGHAM replied they are not. He said there's an underlying
concern that the regulations will be fine for the current
administration, but there is concern regarding what will happen
with the next administration. He indicated that placing the
process in regulation would certainly be an important step toward
providing some greater stability in the way projects are selected.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked how SB 263 would affect the Alaska Marine
Highway.
MR. BRIGHAM replied that the effect would be very small because
most of the Alaska Marine Highway projects qualify under the
National Highway System category. He pointed out that there are a
few terminal improvements in locations such as Hoonah and Angoon
that are off the mainline that would be affected by this bill. He
said he is not sure how DOT/PF would take those into account.
Number 2395
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked, "If this bill passes with the 20
percent language, you would then add to this a separate category.
That separate category to meet the 20 percent would require how
many points?"
MR. BRIGHAM said it would require 60 points. He said it would have
a weight of 5, but the total possible points would be 60.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Brigham if he has any idea how the
points would be rearranged for the other factors. He asked if the
points would need to be lowered.
MR. BRIGHAM said, "Well, (indisc.) obviously do it anyway, but the
simple way to look at this is given there's 225-235 points possible
right now, if you add on 60, you don't need to lower anything else.
Your new total -- 60 points would be 20 percent of the new total.
So it's a very simple way to comply with this proposed bill."
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "So then what you would do is you would
then have the scoring criteria going out to the right here in which
a certain amount of those 60 -- you can get the full 60 points
if...."
MR. BRIGHAM interjected and said, "In high traffic volumes, above
15,000 cars per day."
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked, "And you would do that, probably then
with hard numbers."
MR. BRIGHAM replied, "Yes." He noted that the highest ADT on the
handout is Diamond Boulevard at the Old Seward Highway, which is
39,000. He said part of it is in setting the scale, but obviously
the desire here is the full points, which would be lots of traffic,
and zero points would be not very much traffic and they would have
a scale in between the two.
TAPE 98-21, SIDE B
Number 0012
MS. JACKSON pointed out that Mr. Brigham recommended that the
committee consider putting secondary roads into the title and she
said it's probably not a bad concept, but SB 263 has a five-year
limit on that program. She said she did not know how appropriate
it would be to put in a program in statute that will go away in
five years. She referred to a question asked by Representative
Masek regarding how many roads there are statewide. She indicated
that there are 2,270 miles of graveled road, which DOT/PF provided
them last September and DOT/PF's estimate on the cost to
reconstruct them was $540 million. She said SB 263 provides for
$20 million for five years which would total $100 million. She
said there will be ample people who will approach this and take
advantage of it. She continued, "This bill does not limit itself
to only those roads to be improved that will be transferred to a
municipality. It's an upgraded road that needs to be done. It
will be in excess of the $3-5 million that the previous gentlemen
[Thomas Brigham] spoke to on an annual basis. We believe it will
be the full $20 million. Of that full $20 million, there may be $5
or $6 million, which would be transferred to municipalities, but
the other $14 [million] can and should be expended on graveled
roads and upgrading them. Every time you upgrade a graveled
maintained road in the state of Alaska that is maintained by the
state of Alaska, you will be reducing the cost of the maintenance
of the road, and that's another critical component to be
considered." Ms. Jackson referred to Representative Masek's
testimony regarding standards. She indicated that it will be very
difficult to development statewide standards. Every community not
only has their own desire, but every community may very well have
-- a neighborhood arterial may need to be "X" amount of feet in
width with a setback from the sidewalk, et cetera. More
importantly, the soils for each community and the availability of
materials would dictate that.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON referred to page 3, line 13, subsection (c)
and asked if he is correct in reading the $20 million as a cap or
could it be less?
MS. JACKSON said it is a cap that is intended to be a $100 million
program for five years.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if they put the maximum in, would it
satisfy the interest?
MS. JACKSON replied in the affirmative. She said, of course, it is
all subject to appropriation and SB 263 would allow that it not
exceed $20 million.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if TRAAK falls under Section 2,
secondary roads.
MS. JACKSON replied that it does not. She said the system that the
state currently has is the NHS, the TRAAK, and the CTP. As a
practical matter, the roads that SB 263 addresses have not been
improved and they are not included in the CTP because they never
make it that far. She indicated that they don't even get on a 20-
year list, let alone a five-year list. She said secondary roads
would be a stand-alone problem and said it's probably not a bad
idea to put them under the NHS, the TRAAK or the CTP, but if it's
a five-year program, which is what this is, the legislature may not
want to put it in statute like that.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON suggested taking a year's available funding
for this project and show the committee how much of the funds go to
each of the three categories of the STIP to give the committee some
idea of what is being targeted with this bill.
Number 0224
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON noted that his staff submitted a letter and
resolution of support from the City of Kenai as part of the bill
packet. He said he would assume that Kenai may not have sent a
letter and resolution of support, if they had known that Section 1
was going to be added. He pointed out that the effect of adding
Section 1 is that the highest project Kenai has is number 221 on a
list of 250. He commented he can't imagine that the City of Kenai
would be happy with that unfortunate (indisc.).
MS. JACKSON said that they discussed the 40, 30, and 20 percent
traffic count, as it crept its way down, since the bill was sent to
the Senate Finance Committee. She continued, "Internally the
discussion has been that it was probably intended to be on a
regional community, so it wasn't intended, as we had understood it,
to be Anchorage versus Kenai, or Juneau versus Kenai, or Kenai
versus Palmer. Our understanding was that the intent of it was
that it be offered in a regional or community basis. But in all
honesty, we're not really quite sure what that means or how to even
affect an amendment to clarify that." She indicated that Senator
Torgerson has discussed the matter with the Chair and that they are
looking at options right now to clarify that.
Number 0296
REPRESENTATIVE ALBERT KOOKESH referred to DOT/PF's comments that
there's nothing wrong with the present system, and he said he is
concerned that they're doing this. He indicated that he looks for
ulterior motives and referred to the list of effects of SB 263 on
CTP project scores given to the committee, specifically, item
number 6, which reads: "Rural and remote areas would receive
significantly less funding." He said he is getting used to seeing
rural Alaska receive a little less money under these types of
scenarios. He asked, "If it's not broken, why are we trying to fix
it?" He commented that he can see urban Alaska again trying to
benefit as a result of rural Alaska getting less. He stated that
he is uncomfortable that people would do this under the guise of
trying to make Alaska a better place.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS pointed out that he believes tomorrow the
committee will be on a 24-hour rule that the conference committee
has appointed. He said the committee will take up this bill again
on Friday if they work out their concerns. He asked the committee
members to keep in touch with his office to let him know what they
think.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0395
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS adjourned the House Transportation Standing
Committee at 2:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|