Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 17
02/10/2015 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Juneau Access Road Project Detail | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 10, 2015
1:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Shelley Hughes, Co-Chair
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Matt Claman
Representative Dan Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Benjamin Nageak
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: JUNEAU ACCESS ROAD PROJECT DETAIL
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
MARC LUIKEN, Commissioner Designee
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions and provided a status
report on Juneau Access Road Project.
GARY HOGINS, Project Manager
Division of Statewide Design & Engineering Services
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of the
Juneau Access Road Project.
PAT PITNEY, Director
Office of Management & Budget (OMB)
Office of the Governor
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions on the
Juneau Access Road Project.
GREGG ERIKSON, Consultant/Owner
Erikson & Associates
Bend, Oregon
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of Juneau
Access Road Project (JA).
TOM BRICE, Lobbyist
Alaska District Council of Laborers
Laborers Local 942
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the Juneau Access
Road Project (JA).
MIKE SCHAEFER, Mayor
Municipality of Skagway Borough
Skagway, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of the
Juneau Access Road Project.
JAN WRENTMORE, Member
Skagway Marine Access Commission
Skagway, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of Juneau
Access Road Project.
RICH MONIAK, Civil Engineer (CE)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the Juneau
Access Road Project.
CRAIG DAHL, Executive Director
Juneau Chamber of Commerce
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the Juneau Access
Road Project (JA).
WAYNE JENSEN, Chair
Alaska Committee
Douglas, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the Juneau Access
Road Project (JA).
MURRAY WALSH
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of Juneau
Access Road Project (JA).
PAULETTE SIMPSON
Douglas, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT Testified in support of the Juneau Access
Road Project (JA).
NANCY WATERMAN
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of Juneau
Access Road Project (JA).
EMILY FERRY, Volunteer
Southeast Alaska Environmental Council (SEAC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of Juneau
Access Road Project (JA).
CLAY FRICK
Haines, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of the
Juneau Access Road Project (JA).
PAUL GROSSI, Lobbyist
Alaska State Pipe Trades UA Local 262
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the Juneau Access
Road Project (JA).
COREY BAXTER, District 8 Representative
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 302
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the Juneau Access
Road Project (JA).
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:03:44 PM
CO-CHAIR SHELLEY HUGHES called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. Representatives Stutes,
Claman, Ortiz, and Hughes were present at the call to order.
Representative Foster arrived as the meeting was in progress.
^PRESENTATION: JUNEAU ACCESS ROAD PROJECT DETAIL
PRESENTATION: JUNEAU ACCESS ROAD PROJECT DETAIL
1:05:10 PM
CHAIR HUGHES announced that the only order of business would be
a detailed status report on the Juneau Access Road Project.
1:07:29 PM
MARC LUIKEN, Commissioner Designee, Department of Transportation
& Public Facilities (DOT&PF), began a PowerPoint status of the
Juneau Access Road Project (JA) by discussing the purpose and
reason to start the project in the first place 23 years ago: to
provide improved surface transportation to and from Juneau
within the Lynn Canal corridor. Originally, the department
identified seven alternatives, but recently explored an eighth
option as a result of the draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS). He offered to review each alternative.
1:09:09 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES referred back to the five bullets on slide 2
that identified the purpose and need for the Juneau Access Road
Project (JA), [which read: provide the capacity to meet
transportation demand in the corridor, provide flexibility and
improve opportunity for travel, reduce travel times between the
communities, reduce state costs for transportation in the
corridor, and reduce user costs for transportation in the
corridor]. She asked whether the alternatives were evaluated in
terms of finding solutions to these five purposes and needs for
the Juneau Access Road Project (JA).
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN answered yes; the purpose and need was part
of the analysis, such that each alternative had various merits
that met the purpose and need statements.
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked whether the process was used to narrow
down the alternatives to the one that best provides solutions to
each of the bullet points.
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN answered yes.
1:09:59 PM
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN directed attention to the list of
alternatives and specifically to Alternative 1B, which was the
additional alternative researched as a result of the court order
in 2012 [slide 3]. He reviewed the remaining alternatives:
Alternative 1 would continue the existing service in Lynn Canal
from Auke Bay [slide 4]; Alternative 1B would provide enhanced
service as an alternative to the project [slide 5]; and
Alternative 2B would build a road north from the terminus of the
Glacier Highway on the west side of Lynn Canal terminating near
Katzehin [slide 6]. He said the draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) and draft Supplemental EIS list Alternative 2B
as the preferred alternative.
1:12:00 PM
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN continued briefly describing the
alternatives: Alternative 3 would provide a ferry terminal in
Berners Bay and another one on the west side of Lynn Canal with
a road going north from there; Alternative 4A would terminate
the road in Berners Bay and provide ferry service from Berners
Bay to Haines and Skagway [slide 8]; Alternative 4B would
provide a similar alternative, with the road terminus in the
Berners Bay area; Alternative 4C would operate ferries from Auke
Bay [slide 10]; and Alternative 4D would build a terminal at
Sawmill Cove and operate ferries from Auke Bay and from Sawmill
Cove to serve Lynn Canal.
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN reiterated that the purpose and needs
statement was used to examine the merits of each of the eight
alternatives. In addition, the alternatives were analyzed based
on consistency with the 2004 Southeast Alaska Transportation
Plan (SATP). Although the aforementioned plan has been updated,
it is still in draft form. Thus the 2004 Southeast Alaska
Transportation Plan (SATP) is the most current version of the
plan, he said.
1:14:30 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked whether the department identified
Alternative 2B as the preferred solution.
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN answered that the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) is currently
considering all of the alternatives for the Juneau Access Road
Project (JA). He reported that the DOT&PF received substantial
comment, and after briefly conferring with staff, he confirmed
that the public comment period closed at the end of November.
He reported that considerable work must be done before the
DOT&PF can reach a final conclusion on the preferred
alternative.
1:15:09 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that the department
used a matrix to meet the needs and goals. She recalled that at
one point Alternative 2B was identified as the preferred route.
She asked whether there were issues with the matrix used.
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN agreed that in 2006, the department
originally assessed the project and determined the preferred
route as Alternative 2B; however, the current fiscal forecast
and budget warrant further consideration and review to determine
the DOT&PF's analysis of the data going forward.
1:16:05 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked if the department removed the budget
issues from the equation, whether Alternative 2B will best meet
the bullets listed [on slide 2].
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN suggested the next slide will cover cost
factors.
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked to first consider whether the travel
demand, capacity, flexibility, travel times, and opportunity to
travel is best met by Alternative 2B.
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN answered not in his estimation; however, it
does do so in the estimation of those who performed the
analysis. In fact, it was the conclusion the DOT&PF arrived at
or it would not have been identified as the preferred
alternative.
1:16:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN recalled from an earlier presentation that
the administration will inform the legislature on its decision
on the Knik Arm Crossing (KAC) in the next two to three weeks.
He asked whether the administration will use a similar timeline
to reach a decision on the Juneau Access Road Project (JA)
preferred alternative.
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN replied that with major projects such as the
KAC, there is always a logical next step and during this
briefing he will identify the logical next step for the Juneau
Access Road Project (JA). In fact, his recommendation to the
governor will be to take this project to the logical next step.
In doing so, it will buy the department time to perform a
thorough assessment before reaching a final decision on the
preferred alternative.
1:18:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked if the decision would be reached in
two or three weeks or if the DOT&PF has not yet determined a
deadline.
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN answered that he did not think it would
happen in the next couple of weeks, but the DOT&PF will have a
decision on the logical next step, he said.
1:18:41 PM
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN directed attention to the cost factors that
provide an analysis of the costs the department used to
determine the preferred alternative [slide 13]. He pointed out
the large range of the initial project costs and project life
costs for each alternative. In addition this slide also shows
the estimated net annual general fund maintenance and operations
(M&O) cost for each project. Finally, the slide identifies the
per vehicle cost based on driving on roads or using the ferry
system, he said.
1:19:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether these costs reflect the cost
of the Alaska Class Ferries (ACFs) that are required in order to
serve this area. She said it appeared to her that the draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) also requires
additional ferries besides the two [ACF] ferries scheduled to be
finished in the next several years.
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN answered no. He offered his belief that the
decision to build the two new [ACF] ferries was made in order to
serve Lynn Canal.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked for further clarification on whether
the ferries referred to in the draft Supplemental EIS are the
two ACF that are currently scheduled to be finished in 2016.
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN answered yes; that is his understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES said she would be interested in having
confirmation of that.
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN agreed to confirm this.
1:20:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN following up on the two Alaska Class
Ferries (ACFs), asked whether the proposed 50-mile road on the
east side would require additional ferries to shuttle between
the proposed new ferry terminal at [Katzehin] and Haines.
1:21:49 PM
GARY HOGINS, Project Manager, Division of Statewide Design &
Engineering Services, Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities (DOT&PF), stated that all of the alternatives except
the fast ferry alternatives use the two Alaska Class Ferries
(ACFs). In Alternative 2B the ACFs would be used to shuttle
between Katzehin and Skagway, and Katzehin and Haines, but a
third vessel would also need to be built to shuttle passengers
and vehicles between Haines and Skagway.
1:22:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether the costs for the third
vessel are incorporated into the cost factors.
MR. HOGINS answered that the cost of the Alaska Class Ferries
(ACFs) is not included in any of the alternatives. In further
response, he answered that the ACF vessels were being considered
to fall under existing conditions. The No Action Alternative
accounts for the two ACFs being deployed in Lynn Canal.
1:22:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES presumed that the cost of building new
ferry terminals was also not included in the cost factors for
any of the alternatives.
MR. HOGINS offered his belief that the alternatives include
costs for the new ferry terminals in Berners Bay, Katzehin, or
William Henry Bay on the west side of Lynn Canal. In addition,
costs for some improvements to Haines and Skagway have been
included specific to some of the alternatives.
1:23:56 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES, with respect to the No Action Alternative,
asked whether it would cost $300 million to build a large ferry
to serve the Juneau to Haines route with an anticipated 50-year
life for the ferry.
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN offered to provide the information to the
committee.
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked for further clarification on the project
life.
MR. HOGINS answered that the economic analysis spanned 36 years
for the Juneau Access Road Project (JA).
1:24:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked for an estimate of the cost to build
two vessels - the Alaska Class Ferries (ACFs).
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN answered that $120 million was appropriated
for the two ACF ferries. In further response, he agreed the
appropriation was $60 million for each ACF.
1:25:39 PM
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN reviewed the project history [slide 14]. In
1992 the project was initiated, in 1997 a draft EIS was
prepared, and in 2000 the project was delayed while two fast
ferries were built. In 2002, former Governor Murkowski directed
that the EIS be completed. In 2005 a supplemental draft EIS was
prepared and in 2006, a final EIS identified the East Lynn Canal
Highway as the preferred alternative and a record of decision
(ROD) was issued by the FHWA [Federal Highway Administration].
In August 2006 a lawsuit was filed in district court against the
FHWA's decision.
1:26:45 PM
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN continued the project history [slide 15].
In February 2009, the district court vacated the FHWA's ROD,
concluding that the FHWA failed to consider an alternative for
improved ferry service using existing ferries and terminals. In
2011, the DOT&PF appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
and lost in 2012, with the recommendation to conduct a
supplemental EIS to consider the enhanced ferry option. In
November 2014 the DOT&PF completed the draft EIS. The DOT&PF's
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 404/Section 10 permit for
the Juneau Access Road Project expired on January 31, 2015.
1:27:21 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked for further clarification on the number of
public comments received during the public comment period.
MR. HOGINS answered the department received in excess of 42,000
comments.
1:27:48 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked whether the comments were from Alaskans or
from the Lower 48.
MR. HOGINS answered that 35,000 comments were received from
Earth Justice in Washington state.
1:28:03 PM
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN directed attention to the draft Supplemental
EIS on the court mandated alternative to improve marine ferry
service in Lynn Canal, including reassessing reasonable
alternatives, such as changes to regulations, updated analysis,
and alternative revisions necessary to address new
environmental and engineering information since the 2006 record
of decision (ROD)[slide 16].
1:28:41 PM
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN directed attention to the current project
status, stating that sufficient funds have been encumbered to
complete the EIS to the record of decision (ROD) for an
estimated cost of $800,000 [slide 17]. As members are aware,
Governor Walker issued Administrative Order (AO 271), which
halted all work on the Juneau Access Road Project. As
previously mentioned, completing the Draft Supplemental EIS is
really the next logical conclusion for this project, which will
be his recommendation to the governor.
1:29:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether the federal funding exists
for the Juneau Access Road Project (JA).
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked if the federal funding is specific
to the Juneau Access Road Project of if it is for the highway
system.
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN answered that the question gets into the
Statewide Transportation Improvements Program (STIP). As the
STIP is developed, the department includes projects that will
receive federal funding and the Juneau Access Road Project is
included in the 2012 - 2015 STIP.
1:30:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether these funds could be
allocated to the MV Tustumena.
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN answered that he was unsure, but he offered
to provide a response to the committee.
1:30:40 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES passed the gavel to Co-Chair Foster.
1:30:59 PM
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN said that if the department moves forward
with the project it is possible to reach a final Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) by early
2016 or at least a recommended preferred alternative to the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) [slide 18].
1:31:24 PM
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN indicated that once the ROD is received, the
department will request injunction relief if the alternative
requires it, and will move forward with the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) permit, the US Forest Service easement, and if
the decision is to move forward with a preferred alternative,
construction could begin as early as 2016.
1:32:01 PM
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN directed attention to additional approvals
needed for the Juneau Access Road Project once the project
reaches a record of decision (ROD), including obtaining a US
Army Corps of Engineers 404/Section 10 permit, consulting with
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on the Endangered
Species Act, obtaining the National Marine Fisheries Service
Marine Mammals Protection Act Incidental Harassment
authorization, obtaining a US Forest Service right-of-way
easement, and Bald Eagle disturbance permits [slide 19].
1:32:23 PM
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN reviewed the current federal and state
funding, reporting that the total funding available for the
project is $202 million, of which, $154 million is federal
funding for construction previously approved by the legislature
and $48 million is in general funds previously appropriated by
the legislature.
1:32:53 PM
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN informed members that the Juneau Access Road
Project can be found at the department's website
www.juneauaccess.alaska.gov [slide 21].
1:33:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked if the total funding available for
the project is $202 million. She recalled reading that the
Juneau Access Road Project total cost was $574 million.
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN agreed that the initial construction costs
for Alternative 2B is $574 million, but it would be phased over
several years.
1:33:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether the Juneau Access Road
Project will require $372 million more in funding.
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN answered yes.
1:34:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN, referring to slide 13, said the total
project cost for the No Action Alternative would require a total
project cost of $669 million and Alternative 1B would cost
$1.030 billion. The current preferred Alternative 2B would
require $1.093 billion. He recalled the executive summary
described various alternatives, and enhanced ferry service for
[Alternative 1B] includes an assumption of 20 percent reduction
in fares for trips in Lynn Canal in the extended hours of
operations. Basically, he assumed that since this alternative
enhances ferry service in addition to bringing on the ACF, the
effort will be taken to reduce the fares on the ferries below
the actual cost. He asked how these figures would change under
Alternative 1B if the state eliminates the 20 percent fare
reduction.
MR. HOGINS said he does not have the figures today but he
offered to provide them.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said he's interested in these figures
since the legislature often asks whether the Alaska Marine
Highway System (AMHS) is paying for itself; however, the
legislature doesn't ask the same question about highways. He
questioned whether the gas taxes pay for highways. He expressed
interest in the assumptions for Alternative 1B since he was
unsure whether the state can afford to reduce fares by 20
percent.
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN offered to provide the analysis. He
envisioned this is the type of information the department can
consider over the next few months.
1:36:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN recalled the projected average daily
travel for the road at 1,240 vehicles in the winter and 2,000
per day in the summer. He was curious how those figures compare
to the number of travelers driving between Anchorage and Palmer
or Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Valley. He asked for
further clarification on the Juneau Access Road Project (JA)
figures and how it relates to other parts of the state.
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN answered that he is referring to the average
daily traffic count (ADT). He offered to provide the ADT for
the Glenn Highway and other highways.
1:38:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether he had a general idea if it
was comparable or if it will be a much lower number.
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN answered that it would be a considerably
different number.
1:38:21 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES returned the gavel to Co-Chair Hughes.
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked how much the state will need to repay the
Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) if the state does not
move forward with the Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN answered that the local director of the FHWA
[Federal Highway Administration] informed the department that
the state could be facing a $27 million bill.
1:39:18 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked whether the state can move the federal
funding elsewhere and if so, the amount of state funds required
to do so.
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN answered the potential exists that the state
will not spend money set aside for the Juneau Access Road
Project (JA) this year since it will take the department another
year to complete the draft [Supplemental] Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). The department has identified other projects
where it can use the aforementioned funds for in 2016.
1:40:08 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked for a mile-for-mile comparison between
constructing a road and operating a ferry.
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN offered to provide the analysis.
1:40:35 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked whether one is less expensive than the
other.
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN answered that the maintenance and operations
(M&O) for the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) is less than
the revenue earned by the AMHS; he estimated the cost at about
$114 million for the AMHS and about $115 million for maintenance
and operations (M&O) for the road system.
1:41:19 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked for further clarification on the figures.
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN answered that the maintenance and operations
(M&O) for the Alaska Marine Highway System and the maintenance
and operations (M&O) to maintain the state's road system is
essentially the same cost; however, this doesn't compare lane
miles, but the total cost of the maintenance and operations
(M&O) budget.
1:41:52 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES understood Commissioner Luiken is talking about
the entire road system in Alaska, but he is not comparing the
specific road distance to a ferry route of the same distance.
She expressed an interest in drilling down to obtain that
information. As someone who previously lived in Southeast
Alaska, she realizes the importance of the ferry system to the
communities. In fact, she still has family who live in
Southeast Alaska; however, she also recognizes that the state is
facing escalating costs. In the 1990s, the state subsidized the
AMHS by $50 million, but currently the state is looking at a
subsidy of $120 million. Thus the state must think "out of the
box" to find solutions. Referring to the purpose and need slide
[slide 2], it is clear the preferred alternative [Alternative
2B] addressed some of the cost, which the committee should keep
in mind. The legislature represents Alaskan individuals and
families, and for a family of four to take a vehicle from Juneau
to Haines costs $400, which could be greatly reduced to a few
gallons of gasoline if the Juneau Access Road Project (JA) was
completed. She asked for the overall life expectancy of
ferries, recalling that ferries have a limited life and must be
replaced about every 50 years.
1:44:11 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that the fuel
emissions are greater for ferries than from vehicles traveling
on the road system.
MR. HOGINS offered to provide information on emissions for
vehicles and ferries. In further response to Co-Chair Hughes,
he answered that he was unsure and to avoid misspeaking would
prefer to furnish the emissions information to the committee.
1:45:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES commented that Alternative 2B has the
largest impact on the natural resources, including impacts to
old growth forest and wetlands habitat. She pointed out the
impacts are far greater with Alternative 2B than other
alternatives. She said she was curious why that option would be
selected as compared to others given the huge environmental
impact.
MR. HOGINS stated that the department minimized the environment
impacts on the wetlands and old growth using the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) process in 2006 and the
US Army Corps of Engineers permitting process in 2006 and 2007.
He said she is correct that the preferred alternative has the
highest environmental impact of all of the alternatives, but the
department has "taken its best shot" to minimize the effects to
the greatest extent it can under Alternative 2B.
1:46:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked whether the department factors in
revenue when considering comparable costs between the AMHS and
the highway system.
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN answered yes; that it does factor in revenue
earned by the ferry system.
1:47:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether the department will provide
figures that will cover the total road system in Alaska.
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN answered yes.
1:47:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked for further clarification on the
total number of road miles in the state versus total ferry miles
in Alaska.
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN offered to provide the information. He
identified one factor that must also be considered is the total
population served by each of the two systems.
1:47:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked for the total cost of maintenance
and operations (M&O) for the highway and the Alaska Marine
Highway System (AMHS). He expressed an interest in the overall
cost for maintenance and operations (M&O) and the total revenue
derived from each component of the three legs of the
transportation system: roads, ferries, and aviation. He would
like the total revenue derived to include the gas taxes and
fares for the AMHS. He further asked whether the revenue from
the gas tax is used to provide support for AMHS or if it is
limited to just roads.
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN answered that Alaska's fuel tax is not
dedicated and is deposited to the general fund.
1:49:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether he can provide the income
generated by fuel taxes.
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN answered yes; that he can provide the
revenue collected for fuel taxes.
CO-CHAIR FOSTER stated that Ms. Pitney was asked to participate
since AO 271 requested project analysis be provided by the OMB.
He asked for a description of the analysis that was conducted to
determine the shelving of these important projects.
1:50:36 PM
PAT PITNEY, Director, Office of Management & Budget (OMB),
Office of the Governor, referred to the six projects defined as
megaprojects in the administrative order. In addition to these
six projects, the governor also asked all agencies to review the
capital appropriations in a less formal way. She stated that
the analysis to review the Juneau Access Road project would be
very similar to how the agency reviews other projects, including
considering how far the state is into the project, how much
additional funding will be required to complete the project,
identifying the opportunity costs vis-a-vis state or federal
funds, and determining whether there is a logical pause point.
Further, the goal would be to preserve as much value as possible
for expenditures on the project to allow for future decisions on
the project. As Commissioner Luiken mentioned the logical pause
point for the Juneau Access Road Project (JA) would be to
achieve the record of decision (ROD). Reaching the ROD would
preserve all of the work to date and allow the state several
years to decide whether to fund the road, if the state were to
decide to do so. Therefore the administration's goal will be to
get to the record of decision (ROD).
1:53:02 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES suggested that the definition of megaprojects
used to be for projects estimated to cost $1 billion. She asked
whether the Juneau Access Road Project (JA) is properly
designated by being listed in the category of megaprojects.
MS. PITNEY answered yes; that the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) considers projects over $500 million as large projects
that require additional scrutiny. In a sense the definition of
megaproject is informed by the transition team's work. She
suggested that the [administration and the legislature] can
argue how "big is big," but all projects should be reviewed at
this time.
1:54:57 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES agreed these large projects should get extra
scrutiny; however, she disagreed that the Juneau Access Road
Project (JA) falls in the megaproject category and that
categorizing it in this way could mislead the public; however,
she agreed all large projects should be carefully scrutinized.
In fact, going through that process is very healthy for the
state, she said, noting she appreciates that the administration
has taken action so the legislature can review the projects.
1:55:49 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked for the total general fund expenditures
that have been spent on the JA project thus far and any
additional funds required to complete the project.
MS. PITNEY answered that the state needs an additional $800,000
to get to the record of decision (ROD). She said the OMB
recommends using the remaining $800,000 to do so. She offered
to provide information on the amount of the appropriation.
1:57:13 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that an additional $9
million in general funds is needed to complete the project and
approximately $50 million in general fund monies have already
been appropriated. She asked whether the additional $9 million
would trigger about $91 million in federal dollars.
MS. PITNEY answered that she believes the additional amount
needed to complete the project is closer to $20 million in
general fund monies, plus the federal funding. She reminded
members that using the aforementioned federal funds on the
Juneau Access Road Project (JA) will mean those funds will not
be available to use on a different project. She cautioned that
the federal funds are not "free" but represent an opportunity
cost for future priorities.
1:58:14 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked for further clarification as to whether
reallocating federal funds [designated for the JA) will require
an additional 9 to 10 percent of state funds in matching funds,
which will need to be added to the budget.
MS. PITNEY answered that is correct.
1:58:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES acknowledged that she is a little
confused. She asked for confirmation on whether it will take
$20 million in general funds to finish the Juneau Access Road
Project (JA) since today's DOT&PF's presentation indicates that
the funding available for the JA project to date is $202 million
[per slide 20]. However, she further understood the total cost
of the project is $574 million for initial construction costs,
for Alternative 2B [slide 13] so the state is $300 million
short.
MS. PITNEY agreed to report back to the committee on these
figures since the math doesn't work for her either.
1:59:46 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES surmised some of the $300 million is federal
funds, but she would like to know the exact amount. It had been
her understanding that approximately $9-10 million in general
funds would be needed to complete the project. She further
understood that the additional general funds would trigger 9 to
10 percent in federal dollars. She asked for further
clarification on whether $800,000 will be needed to finish the
[record of decision (ROD)].
MS. PITNEY answered yes.
2:00:21 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES also understood that funding, possibly already
appropriated, for constructing two segments of the road.
MS. PITNEY deferred to the DOT&PF.
2:00:56 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that money has been
appropriated that will allow the DOT&PF to proceed with
construction on two segments of the Juneau Access Road Project
(JA).
MR. HOGINS answered that if the administration goes forward with
the preferred Alternative 2B, the intention would be to
construct it in segments. Currently, the department has $160
million, plus or minus, in legislative authority for federal
funds that could be applied to the first several segments. He
stated that the short answered is yes; the department has the
funds available to do the first segments of the projects.
2:01:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether the funds are the ones
listed [on slide 13] of the presentation. She further asked
whether that means the department is still missing $300 million.
MR. HOGINS answered that is correct.
2:02:11 PM
CO-CHAIR FOSTER returned the gavel to Co-Chair Hughes.
2:02:49 PM
GREGG ERIKSON, Consultant/Owner, Erikson & Associates, stated
that he also maintains an office in Juneau, has been an
economist in Alaska for more than 40 years, has worked on road
issues, and recently served on Governor Walker's fiscal policy
transition committee. The transition committee unanimously
recommended that the [major transportation] projects be
suspended and carefully reviewed. Early last year the Skagway
Marine Access Commission hired him to try to make sense of the
fiscal data generated by consultants for the Juneau Access Road
Project; however, this task was easier than anticipated since
the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
financed an excellent analysis of the economics and fiscal
impacts of this project. He urged members to review the
DOT&PF's analysis.
2:05:09 PM
MR. ERICKSON noticed some questions that were raised today are
immediately answered in the Juneau Access Improvements Project
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), in
particular the economic and fiscal analysis included in Appendix
FF of the document. The Draft Supplemental EIS, dated August
2014, was prepared by Jim Calvin and Juneau economist Milt
Barker for the McDowell Group. With respect to an earlier
question on the annual maintenance and operations (M&O),
comparing the Alaska Marine Highway System and Alternative 2B
for the road and ferry, somehow some people are saying that the
annual operating costs for the road will be less, but that is
just not so. In looking at the executive summary in the Draft
Supplemental EIS (SEIS), Table 1, the annual maintenance and
operations (M&O) for the ferries for the "No Action" alternative
is estimated at $15.4 million and the annual M&O for
[Alternative 2B] for the road is $20.4 million. He was unsure
how those figures "gained currency" but it is just not the case,
he said.
MR. ERICKSON reported the project's total life cost for the
ferries is $669 million, but the cost to build the road is over
$1 billion. In terms of the purpose and need, the focus was on
surface transportation, which he found odd since the Draft
Supplement Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) statement
released in September 2014 [page 1-7] reads as follows, "Because
of the relatively short travel times and schedule frequency,
business travelers generally prefer air travel to the ferry
system. Air service in the Lynn Canal corridor plays an
important role in transporting passengers, freight, and mail
however, travel is often constrained by fog, high winds, or
snowstorms and can be delayed up to several days in the fall,
winter, and spring." However, the DOT&PF has offered no
explanation of why it restricted its study to service
alternatives. He said, "I consider that a serious flaw, but
looking at the five part statement of purpose and need, I notice
that there is noticeably absent in that list any comprehensive
measure of overall net economic benefit such as net present
value, benefit cost ratio, economic efficiency, or cost
effectiveness."
2:08:40 PM
MR. ERICKSON remarked that in all the EIS's he has previously
reviewed, he has never seen an EIS in which the purpose and
needs statement does not include something related to
comprehensive economic benefits or how the costs of the project
compare to the benefits. In fact, that is the procedure the
American Association of State Highway Engineers and
Transportation (ASHETO) officials recommend, he said. That
organization published a great big book describing how to do it,
which it says is the proper procedure to use to decide which
projects to build with limited funds. However, the department
offered no explanation for omitting comprehensive cost
effectiveness criteria from the purpose and need statement. The
McDowell Group and Milt Barker did the calculation in its
appendix, noting the ratio of benefits to the cost of the
project and concluded that for every dollar invested in the
Juneau Access Road Project (JA), the DOT&PF indicates the state
will receive $.28 in benefits or a .28 benefit cost ratio.
2:10:33 PM
MR. ERICKSON reported that the American Association of State
Highway Engineers and Transportation Officials (ASHETO)
indicates that states should not build anything with a cost
benefit ratio less than 1.0. However, this project is so far
below 1.0 that he found it almost amazing that [the JA] is still
on the table. He surmised this likely speaks to the parochial
nature of decision making and to political factors that affect
the process. He suggested that in times when the economy is
good, screenings that normally occur for public works projects
of this magnitude are not considered. As an economist, he has
observed Alaska's economy go up and down over the years and this
is not the first time the state has been in fiscal stress. For
example, the state had a serious recession in the 80s, but it
recovered. During the downturns the state has always used its
capital budget as the "balance wheel" since Alaska typically
spends 12 times more per capita than other states on capital
budget.
2:12:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether the $20 million annual
operating cost for Alternative 2B is for 2020.
MR. ERICKSON answered that $20 million figure represents the
average annual maintenance and operation cost (M&O) over the
entire life of the project.
2:13:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether Mr. Erickson has a copy of
the DOT&PF's PowerPoint presentation [in members' packets].
MR. ERICKSON answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN suggested this might be a question for
DOT&PF, but the line item on slide 13 estimates net maintenance
and operations (M&O) of $10 million for Alternative 2B and $15
million for Alternative 1B. He wondered why Mr. Erickson
reported the maintenance and operations (M&O) at $20 million
when the PowerPoint estimates maintenance and operations (M&O)
at $10 million.
MR. ERICKSON directed attention to page ES 16, line 3, of the
draft Supplemental EIS, which lists annual maintenance and
operations (M&O) at $20.4 million for Alternative 2B. He agreed
it is a good question for the department.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN expressed an interest in an explanation
for the discrepancy in the annual costs.
2:15:05 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES wondered if Mr. Erickson agrees that the more
people who travel between two towns will increase the economic
benefit for both of the towns.
MR. ERICKSON answered yes. He indicated that he wrote a column
eight years ago in the Juneau Empire in which he said there is
no question that the proposed road would benefit Juneau's
economy. At the time the project was strictly a road and not a
road and short ferry option, he said. He remarked that every
project will benefit people, including the construction workers
who will work on the project so it isn't surprising they will
support the project. However, he suggested the real question is
how the state will allocate a limited amount of spending since
the state cannot spend everything it wants to. He offered that
the way to make that judgment is to examine the overall benefits
compared to the overall costs, at least that is one important
element that should be considered. He said, "My beef with the
Department of Transportation is they didn't consider that at
all. I think that's just unconscionable."
2:16:54 PM
TOM BRICE, Lobbyist, Alaska District Council of Laborers,
Laborers Local 942, stated he works for the Alaska District
Council of Laborers representing the Public Employees Local 71,
Laborers Local 341, and Laborer Local 942. He said that he is
speaking on own behalf but and for the Laborers Local 942, who
have supported this project for approximately 20 years, not just
for jobs, but for the economy in the northern Lynn Canal
communities. The JA project represents an important
transportation infrastructure to bring people of Alaska closer
to their capital, strengthen the ties within the northern Lynn
Canal communities, and help stabilize the transportation of
goods and services within the region. Currently, it takes close
to seven hours to travel between Juneau and Haines or Skagway,
weather permitting on the mainline ferry. In fact, he noted
ferry service was cancelled last week in northern Lynn Canal due
to strong winds, but planes were also not flying. He briefly
reviewed the travel time to travel between Juneau and Haines on
a mainline ferry, including the necessity for passengers to
arrive two hours prior to sailing, the 4.5 hours mainline travel
time, as well as the typical $400 round trip cost.
MR. BRICE offered that the time and costs associated with travel
can create major barriers between communities such as Juneau,
Haines, and Skagway. He acknowledged that some Juneauites would
like to be able to run their snowmachines in the pass or hike
the Chilkoot Trail, but the costs to travel to Haines or Skagway
via the ferry are too high. He also often works in Haines and
his ability to use the ferry is very limited due to the ferry
schedules, he said.
2:22:28 PM
MR. BRICE, after highlighting major projects the construction
company has built, asked to read an excerpt from a letter he
received from Miller Construction, related to a travel incident.
He read as follows:
Miller Construction Company sold a Wasilla-based
excavator to a Juneau business during the summer of
2014. The excavator was trucked to Haines and Miller
Construction in one day's time. We [Miller
Construction Company] had planned to ship the
excavator from Haines to Juneau via AMHS [Alaska
Marine Highway System] because the truck, trailer, and
the excavator was under 70,000 pounds, but when the
truck arrived at the ferry terminal, the driver was
told that the ferry was overbooked. In fact, the
ferry was full for the next week. The excavator had
to be placed on the barge heading to Juneau. The
barge was not scheduled to leave until a week after
the excavator had arrived in Haines. Therefore the
excavator was out of service for a whole week during
the middle of the construction season. This was a
costly delay and not the anomaly as cargo availability
on the AMHS is very limited. An excavator of this size
costs $500 per day, whether it's in use or not. It's
really an economic loss to the contractor.
MR. BRICE said he appreciated the position the administration
finds itself in, but he agreed with Co-Chair Hughes that the
review process is an important process. The department has a
number of options with respect to the Juneau Access Road
Project, including that the funds allocated and dedicated to
this process could be spent over a longer period of time, or
smaller parts of the project could be built.
MR. BRICE suggested that the state consider the permanency of a
road, as well as that the appropriated funding can be spread out
over time. He urged members not to close doors or write off an
investment that the state has made during the past 20 years.
2:26:14 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked if he was aware of any other construction
projects in the queue as ready as this project that could be
moved forward with the federal funding.
MR. BRICE deferred to DOT&PF, but in his view, probably not. He
acknowledged that it can take years to bring a project to
fruition, but noted this project is moving along. He
characterized the Juneau Access Road Project (JA) as vital
infrastructure for the state.
2:27:50 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked whether there are any geologic or
geographic issue.
MR. BRICE deferred to Corey Baxter [District 8 Representative,
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 302]; however,
from the laborers perspective, the workers who perform the
drilling, blasting, and ditch digging; he answered no. He did
not think that many obstacles could not be overcome by good
contractors using innovative practices. For example, he pointed
to previous work done on the Egan Expressway and to the
multitude of road systems through the fiords in the Scandinavian
countries, including tunnels. Although he was not opposed to
the idea of drilling tunnels, he acknowledged that concept was
not currently on the table; however the highway is on the table
and he is supportive of the highway.
2:29:19 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked for the impact on the industry if this
project is halted until 2018 and whether he predicts that people
will leave the state.
MR. BRICE acknowledged that is an important point. He said the
construction industry is vibrant in Alaska, but skills workers
learn in construction are easily transferable to the oil
industry. The construction industry also provides its workers
with health care, pension benefits, career advancement
opportunities, college education, and legal services. He said
he comes from a family with a long history in construction, in
Alaska, emphasizing the opportunities for a wonderful life in
construction, but it all hinges on work opportunities that can
disappear without projects.
2:31:05 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked whether the construction jobs are also
transferable to the gasline.
MR. BRICE answered absolutely. He stated that many Local 914
members work construction in the summers and work out of
Fairbanks on the pipeline and North Slope activities in the
winter.
2:32:04 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES opened public testimony on the Juneau Access
Road Project (JA).
2:32:39 PM
MIKE SCHAEFER, Mayor, Municipality of Skagway Borough, asked to
first welcome back Commissioner Luiken and said he looks forward
to working with him. The committee is wise to provide careful
scrutiny of any megaprojects given the state's challenging
fiscal environment, he said, and maintenance of existing
infrastructure should be a priority. The larger projects carry
the risk of diverting precious transportation dollars away from
smaller projects of critical importance to communities. For
example, he highlighted the sinking of the dock in Skagway this
past spring. He relayed that in 2013 the legislature
appropriated $4.5 million for replacement of the floating dock,
which was not done, and the sinking of the dock in 2014 created
hardships for the state and the community of Skagway. The last
plan was to refurbish the sunken float to extend the float life
by five to eight years, which has not yet been completed. The
status of the $4.5 million appropriation has not been made clear
to the municipality as yet. Similarly, in 2010 funds were
appropriated for replacement of the Klondike Highway Captain
Moore Bridge, but the project was delayed, and in 2013 the funds
were reappropriated to the Juneau Access Road Project (JA).
Thankfully, the aforementioned funding has been restored and the
design stage has begun for this essential Roads to Resources
project. Maintaining existing roads and replacing mainline
ferries should be the department's top priority. The
Municipality of Skagway remains concerned that many
transportation projects of local and regional importance will be
postponed or canceled if the state allocates its sparse
transportation dollars to the Juneau Access Road Project.
MAYOR SCHAEFER said he has asked his staff to make available the
Municipality of Skagway's comments on the Juneau Access draft
supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). He hoped
that members will review them and the many safety and economic
concerns the community has raised.
2:36:58 PM
JAN WRENTMORE, Member, Skagway Marine Access Commission, stated
that she is a local business owner, but is speaking on behalf of
the commission today. She said that there are a few omissions
in the draft EIS. She said that very little is written in the
Juneau Access Road EIS about the vital transportation links
between Haines and Skagway or between Juneau and points south.
She said the Juneau Access [Road Project] is Juneau centric in
its conception and execution. It is "all about Juneau all the
time," she said, with an emphasis on improving access from
Juneau to Haines and Juneau to Skagway. The Juneau Access [Road
Project] treats the rest of the region and the rest of the state
as an afterthought. It gives no consideration on the effects on
the remainder of the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS). The
Lynn Canal route segment enjoys one of the largest volumes of
traffic within the AMHS system, and therefore Lynn Canal makes a
disproportionately large financial contribution to the overall
AMHS system, she said. However, the EIS does not address how
the loss of Lynn Canal revenues will impact the rest of the
system, in particular, with regard to increased levels of
government subsidies. She said that using "unconstrained
demand" the EIS attempts to justify high price tag of the Juneau
Access [Road Project] by predicting greatly inflated numbers,
which amounts to an "if we build it they will come" strategy,
which is a risky game plan for gambling with more than half a
billion dollars of the state's dwindling transportation monies
for a project that can demonstrate no economic benefit. The
Skagway Marine Access Commission supports the construction of
the new streamlined Alaska Class Ferry (ACF) day boats. These
boats will require less than 20 percent of the crew currently
required for the MV Malaspina that serves the Lynn Canal route,
she said.
2:39:22 PM
RICH MONIAK, Civil Engineer (CE), paraphrased from written
comments, as follows [original punctuation provided]:
I just retired from a 35 year career as a civil
engineer. I worked for a state highway department for
5 years and for the federal government in Juneau for
24 years. I know how public agencies underestimate
costs and overstate need to justify projects. DOT
constantly tells us that roads are less expensive than
ferries. For this project that's not true. Their own
supplemental EIS projects the road will cost the state
$5 million a year more than operating the new Alaska
Class ferries in Lynn Canal. And that gets worse if
costs are higher than projected. I believe the three
big bridges, snow sheds, and tunnels are all complex
structures have a high risk for changes in either the
final design or during construction and their costs
will increase dramatically. The same is true for
crossing avalanche zones, talus slopes and rock cuts
that will be as high as 150 feet. I believe the site
development at the Katzehin Ferry Terminal will need
to be much bigger to handle the serious traffic
congestion that will occur if DOT operates as planned
without a reservation system.
I do not believe the Alaska Class Ferries being built
in Ketchikan are ideally suited to be short distance
shuttle ferries. They were designed to operate
efficiently at 15 knots for four hours, not 15
minutes. The passenger capacity and amenities they'll
have make no sense for the way DOT expects to operate
them. After the road is built DOT may come back to the
legislature for funds to build the right shuttles,
just like the $11 million more DOT requested six years
after spending $17 million to raise the Million Dollar
Bridge near Cordova. A bridge that goes nowhere. On
the need side I believe DOT has overstated traffic
demand. It's almost double their two previous
estimates. Almost all of the increase is from traffic
originating in Juneau. It's based on household traffic
surveys from Anchorage and the rest of the country
that already have roads extending in every compass
direction. In developing this estimate DOT opted not
to follow FHWA's Interim Guidance on the Application
of Travel and Land Use Forecasting in NEPA. That
guidance is supposed to ["] assist agencies in
creating better and more legally defensible
forecasting applications ["]. It recommends a
collaborative scoping process involving the public at
the start of the NEPA work. That never happened. I
believe this project constitutes an unwise use of
money at a time when budgets everywhere are shrinking.
Juneau residents will be the prime beneficiary of this
expensive road. If you want to measure its real value,
ask Juneauites to tax themselves to pay for it. I
assure you the demand will disappear.
2:42:08 PM
CRAIG DAHL, Executive Director, Juneau Chamber of Commerce,
stated that the Juneau Chamber of Commerce represents 185 Juneau
business; therefore, he is Juneau centric in his comments. He
has lived in Juneau for more than 50 years, raised his family
here, and has a great appreciation for the lifestyle of
Southeast Alaska. Over two decades that the Juneau Access [Road
Project] has gone on it has consumed months and literally years
of testimony for and against the project, but at each stage, the
project has moved forward and he hopes that will continue. He
said the Juneau Access [Road Project] is a top priority for the
Juneau Chamber of Commerce and has been since its inception. He
indicated that his organization sees the value of infrastructure
as a means to create economic development and benefits to
businesses at both ends of the road. He said this project was
started to give access to the capital city by all Alaskans and
it will give Juneau access to the rest of Alaska. The JA
project provides opportunities for the Alaska Seafood industry
to have a new corridor in Lynn Canal. It will provide more
access and direct access to mineral deposits, as well as an
alternative to the ferry system in the event that the ferry
service is cut back due to budget constraints. This project
will bring construction jobs as well as additional jobs once the
road is completed. As a means to address the current economic
crisis, the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
should be allowed to complete the [draft Supplemental] EIS, come
to a record of decision (ROD), and bring this project to a
conclusion at some point in the future, he said.
2:44:17 PM
WAYNE JENSEN, Chair, Alaska Committee, stated that the Alaska
Committee is a nonprofit corporation whose purpose is to make
state government work better for all Alaskans by enhancing
Juneau as Alaska's capital city. Its 22 member board of
directors represents a diverse cross-section of the Juneau
community. Since 1995, when the Alaska Committee was officially
formed, it has consistently supported improving access to
Juneau. For example, the Alaska Committee was instrumental in
pioneering "Gavel to Gavel" television, has worked with Alaska
Airlines to make air travel more economical through the
constituent fare, Club 49 programs, and in supporting the
technological and physical improvements to the Juneau
International Airport, the downtown area surrounding the
Capitol, including acquisition of the Tom Stewart and Terry
Miller buildings, and improvements to Main Street and Seward
Street. The Alaska Committee has supported completion of the
Lynn Canal [Road Project] and it has been incorporated into the
committee action plan and the Alaska Committee has continued to
advocate for its completion, including supporting Alternative
2B. He pointed out that the road link to Juneau is also
supported by residents throughout the state. The state has made
significant progress on the project. He urged members to
continue to support continuation of the EIS, continuing with the
work that was started and to avoid losing ground in the planning
process, which can lead to the project eventually being
constructed. He concluded by saying that completion of the
project will make the capital more accessible and make travel to
and from Juneau more economical. He thanked members.
2:46:14 PM
MURRAY WALSH said that it is easy to get lost in criticism of
the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and in many of the
details. He emphasized two important things for the committee
to remember, first, that Alternative 2B will provide a huge
increase to traveling capacity for Juneau residents and visitors
by providing nine times the current capacity, and second, people
will be able to travel for less money and much less time. The
state will spend state funds on travel in Lynn Canal, but what
it obtains for this investment will be a huge improvement in
access, not just for families, but for goods and for industry.
He acknowledged that some people oppose this road and will do so
using any means, he said. He urged members not to allow them
hijack the project or "throw sand in the gears" by requiring
additional review. He emphasized that this project has already
undergone significant legislative and public scrutiny. Although
he did not object to the new administration reviewing the
project, he urged members to not allow that process to limit
progress in this region.
2:48:26 PM
PAULETTE SIMPSON stated she is speaking in favor of continuing
the Juneau Access Road Project. She asked for ways to judge the
economic value of a road. For example, this project will
replace expensive, inefficient, slow-moving vessels in Lynn
Canal. She stressed the value in faster and cleaner
transportation, in less expensive and more efficient
transportation. Further, there is value in opening up land to
attract business investment and outside capital, and in putting
hundreds of Alaskans to work on a project; however, much of this
value is impossible to quantify, while the costs of the current
system are easy to quantify, she said. Last fall she listened
to a segment that described how the road to economic recovery
was taking different routes. Communities across America close
to highways were in the economic fast lane compared to more
isolated communities. She said that the three communities of
Juneau, Haines, and Skagway will benefit from better
connections. The state budget shortfall does force the state to
operate within constraints, but it also highlights the need for
a diversified economy, which is exactly what highways bring.
She recalled testimony yesterday during the House Finance
Committee, the DOT&PF rolled out proposed cuts that will reduce
ferry service throughout the system, eliminate the summer day
boat that serves the three aforementioned communities. She
offered her belief that permanent connectivity will have a
positive impact. She stated that recommendations by this
committee can advance sustainable transportation and influence
the long-term equilibrium of this region, which is desperately
needed. She related her understanding that Commissioner Luiken
supports finishing the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
2:50:40 PM
NANCY WATERMAN stated that she has been a Juneau resident since
1970. She recently used the ferry to travel to Sitka. She
appreciated Gregg Erikson's analysis, and all of the work the
DOT&PF is currently doing. She hoped that there will be a
record of decision (ROD) next year. She supported completion of
the ROD. She said she has questions on the economic analysis.
She said that the DOT&PF and the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) will be answering those questions. She offered to submit
additional written comments.
2:52:01 PM
EMILY FERRY, Volunteer, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council
stated that she works with the SEAC. If this road is built, she
will likely drive on the road, which will be great; however, the
question is whether the state should subsidize her vacation.
The question of subsidizes is a big one. She acknowledged that
in looking at the "big picture" roads are cheaper to maintain
since they cost the state less per mile. However, the EIS
document takes this argument and turns it on its head. She said
that ferry alternative and the [Alternative 2B] have the same
baseline, but building the road will require building a new
ferry terminal, avalanche control, maintenance and operations
(M&O), and in fact, the general fund road maintenance will
increase by $5 million per year. She pointed out a long list of
highways along the road system in the state will be built this
summer because the STIP amendment shifted funds from the Knik
Arm Crossing and the Juneau Access [Road Project]. She said
there are plenty of other projects to use the funding designated
for the [Juneau Access Road Project].
2:54:35 PM
CLAY FRICK stated that he is a resident of Haines but spends a
lot of time in Juneau. He has had ample opportunities to ride
the ferry. He doesn't have to worry about black ice or
avalanche chutes. In fact, he wondered about the amount of time
the proposed road would be impassible or a white knuckled drive,
which will far exceed the timeframe to arrive at the ferry
terminal, eat breakfast, and arrive in Haines 4.5 hours later.
He offered his belief that the road will present a danger and
there will be deaths on the road. He expressed concern about
the extra cost to maintain the road. He said that as a
consumer, he finds the ferry system to be a much better option.
He also cautioned against spending federal funds just because
the federal money is available, especially for something like
this.
2:56:55 PM
PAUL GROSSI, Lobbyist, Alaska State Pipe Trades UA Local 262,
stated support the project and not because it provides any jobs
for plumbers, but since it will create additional economic
development. Thus, he said the potential exists for more
private sector jobs. Of course, as members of the building
trades, the organization supports its brother and sister
organizations. On a personal note, it would be nice to be able
to leave town on the spur of the moment. During summer, the
ferries are full so without advance planning travel it precludes
any opportunity to make last minute decisions to visit
Whitehorse. He characterized ferry travel as pleasant, but it
does require advance planning.
2:59:15 PM
COREY BAXTER, District 8 Representative, International Union of
Operating Engineers Local 302, stated that he is a fourth
generation Alaskan. He read a letter from the International
Union of Operating Engineers Local 302, as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
The International Union of Operating Engineers Local
302 strongly encourages the Transportation Committee
and any Legislature to proceed with the Juneau Access
Project. This project is a shovel ready project for
which the funding has already been appropriated and
cancellation could result in federal penalties. Since
there are no other shovel ready projects, it is likely
the federal funds would be lost to Alaska.
The Juneau Access project is a critical infrastructure
project for Juneau and Southeast Alaska. The
construction jobs will help offset the necessary
reduction in other state employment and spending. The
completion of the road will allow the private sector
to develop in our economy. The project will increase
transportation capacity and reduce travel time and
cost in the region, particularly for travel between
the Lynn Canal communities of Juneau, Haines, Skagway
and Alaskans traveling on the road system.
If this Administration halts this project, we wonder
what alternative they will offer to reduce the cost of
transportation and travel for the residents of Juneau
and upper Lynn Canal, short of cutting more services
and ports of call on the Lynn Canal route. The cost of
ferry transportation remains significant. The design
of the ferry system cannot provide services to other
parts of Southeast Alaska if it must continue to serve
the northern portion as it does now. It's time to move
this project ahead. I would like to thank the
Transportation Committee for their time and effort
with this project and hope to see it move forward.
3:01:09 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES, after first determining no one wished to
testify, closed public testimony on the Juneau Access [Road
Project].
3:02:14 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:02
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Feb 10 public testimony - Erickson Article.pdf |
HTRA 2/10/2015 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Feb 10 public testimony - Juneau Access Draft Supplemental EIS.pdf |
HTRA 2/10/2015 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Feb 10 Final Juneau Access 2 10 15 Transportation Presentation (2).pdf |
HTRA 2/10/2015 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Feb 10 public testimony - Juneau Access Draft SEIS Comments.pdf |
HTRA 2/10/2015 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Feb 10 public testimony - Juneau Access for Legislature.pdf |
HTRA 2/10/2015 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Feb 10 public testimony - IUOE Local 302.pdf |
HTRA 2/10/2015 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Feb 10 public testimony - Lois Epstein.pdf |
HTRA 2/10/2015 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Feb 10 public testimony - Adrienne Antoni.pdf |
HTRA 2/10/2015 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Feb 10 public testimony - Rich Moniak.pdf |
HTRA 2/10/2015 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Feb 10 public testimony - Debra Schnabel.pdf |
HTRA 2/10/2015 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Feb 10 public testimony - Shawn Eisele.pdf |
HTRA 2/10/2015 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Feb 10 public testimony - Rob Goldberg.pdf |
HTRA 2/10/2015 1:00:00 PM |