Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
01/27/2022 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Alaska's State Transportation Improvement Plan: Call for Projects and Planning with Stakeholders | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
January 27, 2022
1:01 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Grier Hopkins, Chair
Representative Sara Hannan, Vice Chair
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Tom McKay
Representative Kevin McCabe
Representative Mike Cronk
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: ALASKA'S STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN:
CALL FOR PROJECTS AND PLANNING WITH STAKEHOLDERS
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
JAMES MARKS, Director
Division of Program Development and Statewide Planning
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint, titled "Alaska's
State Transportation Improvement Plan: Call for Projects and
Planning with Stakeholders."
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:01:23 PM
CHAIR GRIER HOPKINS called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:01 p.m. Representatives
Drummond, McKay, McCabe, Cronk, Hannan, and Hopkins were present
at the call to order. Representative Stutes arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
^Presentation: Alaska's State Transportation Improvement Plan:
Call for Projects and Planning with Stakeholders
Presentation: Alaska's State Transportation Improvement Plan:
Call for Projects and Planning with Stakeholders
1:02:07 PM
CHAIR HOPKINS announced that the only order of business would be
a presentation on Alaska's State Transportation Improvement
Plan: Call for Projects and Planning with Stakeholders.
1:02:49 PM
JAMES MARKS, Director, Division of Program Development and
Statewide Planning, Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (DOT&PF), presented the PowerPoint, titled "Alaska's
State Transportation Improvement Plan: Call for Projects and
Planning with Stakeholders." He stated that the mission
statement for the Division of Program Development and Statewide
Planning is to optimize the state's investment in transportation
and meet federal requirements through effective plan programing.
The transportation planning process is required, and it is the
first step in identifying and selecting and getting a project
into the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
He stated that DOT&PF has a diverse team of planning
professionals working all over the state who will assist in
getting packages to meet federal requirements. He stated that
STIP is one of many plans in a federal hierarchy of plans, with
the top of the plans being the Long Range Transportation Plan
and Freight Plan, which has a 20-year planning span, and sets up
many of the other plans. He said that the Funding and Financing
Plan is in development, and not well understood, which
contributes to the misunderstanding around STIP. He said STIP
is a plan, not a budget, so it can be changed easily.
Continuing, he stated that, because of the size of the state,
the plans break the state into regions.
1:07:19 PM
MR. MARKS, responding to a committee question, addressed the
development of a variation of a Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) for unincorporated areas which do not have
the population or density for MPO. Concerning the pilot project
in the Northwest Arctic Borough, he responded that the
department has had conversations with the leadership team there
about creating a regional transportation planning organization,
much like MPO.
1:08:42 PM
MR. MARKS, continuing with the plan description, pointed out the
Statewide Active Transportation Plan (SWATP), which covers bike
paths, trails, and curbs. He noted that the Transportation
Asset Management Plan looks at the future of assets, such as
pavement and bridges. He pointed out the Strategic Highway
Safety Plan consists of around 45 agencies across the state,
which work at making transportation safer. Responding to a
committee question, he stated that SWATP is now integrated at
the state and federal level and included in all plans.
1:12:00 PM
MR. MARKS, responding to a series of committee questions, stated
that there is a priority system for these programs. He stated
that the mandatory programs are first priority. After this, the
priority is maintaining assets, and the next priority is
modernization and expansion. He stated that the current policy
can dictate how these vary. He responded that most of the
priorities are defined by state and federal regulations, with
most plans in this discussion falling under federal
requirements, with state regulations mirroring these. He stated
that he would address how the areas are prioritized later in the
presentation. Concerning local involvement in active
transportation planning, he responded that a slide would walk
through this later in his presentation. Concerning how local
communities can address projects before implementation, he
responded that public input is welcomed; however, especially
with long expansive projects, once federal money is received,
there is an obligation to finish the project, or the state would
have to pay the funding back.
1:20:19 PM
MR. MARKS proceeded to slide 5, introducing the roles of various
heads of the department. In response to a committee question,
he stated that regional planners are listed on the map of
planning areas on slide 6. He responded that the marine highway
planner position has been vacant because of changes; however,
the position has now been posted.
1:23:27 PM
MR. MARKS continued to slide 7, which lists the regulations. He
stated 17 AAC 05.170 defines how projects are classified in four
board categories: National Highway System (NHS) and Alaska
Highway System (AHS), Community Transportation Program (CTP),
and Trails and Recreation Access for Alaska (TRAAK). He said
that 17 AAC 05.175 defines how the department will identify and
evaluate the needs. He said evaluation criteria includes
effects on the economy and resource access, environment, health,
quality of life and safety, mobility and intermodal connections,
maintenance and operation financial contributions, and public
support. In response to a committee question, he stated that
new regulations are being considered, but this is not an active
project, so there is not a timeline. He stated that, because of
the significant amount of public participation, rewriting the
regulations is challenging and takes a long time. He stated
that he does not know the last time the regulations were
updated. Regarding the composition of the board, he responded
that this is set in regulation. In response to a question
concerning having a member of the public on the board, he stated
that DOT&PF has gone through scenarios, and the challenge is
deciding who would be included. Once decisions are close to
being made, he stated he would share the information with the
committee.
1:27:33 PM
MR. MARKS continued that 17 AAC 05.200 lists out mandatory
recurring and required programs. Proceeding to the next slide,
he said he would describe how the federal apportionments, which
are in statute, relate to the state regulations, as this shapes
the call for projects, and where the funding sources go within
the programs. Starting with NHS and AHS, he said these two are
not subject to 17 AAC 05.175, but are data driven projects using
asset management. To better use the data these are performance-
based programs on stratifying projects, with reoccurring and
required projects being the base. The next programs in the
stratification would maintain already existing assets, and
improvement projects would be at the next level, followed by
expansion projects. He stated that stratifying projects helps
evaluate similar aspects and be more intentional about
investments. Responding to a question, he said everything seen
on slide 5 is in STIP, including NHS and AHS improvements, which
are individual projects instead of programs. In response, he
stated that the Airport Improvement Plan is separate and outside
of STIP and will not be covered in the presentation. He
continued that once there is stratification, the next step is
developing project evaluation criteria. For a better idea of
the benefit cost, this evaluation is predictive relative to time
and other projects. He stated that NHS is funded by the
National Highway Performance (NHPP) funds, and AHS is funded
chiefly by the Service Transportation Block Grant (STBG).
1:34:30 PM
MR. MARKS responded to a series of questions concerning road
condition, repair, and funding. In the example of an impacted
road adjacent to the easement, he replied that there would be
significant inter-agency collaboration for these types of
projects. For clarification, he responded that the "state of
good repair" category means that the road is in good repair, and
any work required would not be considered normal reoccurring
maintenance. In agreement, he continued that this is in
reference to a project that is below good repair and brought
back to good repair but has not received any improvements. This
is about preserving what already exists. In regard to whether
this concerns funding or a certain level of disrepair, he
responded that this is not just when a road has gotten to a
certain state, as there is a pavement management system with
predictive modeling on the future state of pavement at any given
time. These models would be regional as well. The goal is to
preserve the pavement through smaller and more frequent
treatments before it reaches the point where full reconstruction
is needed. He responded that maintenance and operation is a
separate component, with a separate operating budget.
Concerning the type of materials used in different paving
projects, he stated he would follow up with an answer for the
committee. Concerning what criteria is required by NHS and AHS
and whether more local planning could be incorporated, he
replied that the criteria is not in federal or state statute or
regulation. He stated that DOT&PF is looking at ways of using
data in selecting the right projects.
1:44:37 PM
MR. MARKS stated that CTP and TRAAK follow similar processes but
have different projects with different requirements. While not
included in NHS or AHS, both programs service state-owned
transportation facilities at a local level. Submitted projects
serve local needs but are not just locally owned. He stated
that the political subdivisions are the only ones that can
submit projects, so advocacy groups would need to work through a
local political subdivision or municipality to work with DOT&PF.
He stated that the TRAAK program is antiquated, so new federal
rules do not fit easily with these older department regulations.
Concerning this he mentioned the Transportation Alternatives
Program (TAP), which is a federal program addressing bike paths,
sidewalks, and limited recreational trails. He stated that the
primary funding source for CTP and TRAAK is STBG. He stated
that he mentioned TAP because this is a set-aside from STBG and
sub-allocated by population. He said there could be around $17
million in funding through this source.
1:48:18 PM
MR. MARKS, responding to a series of committee questions
concerning TAP funds, said the money can be transferred from one
apportionment to another. A federal rule requires that TAP is
strictly a public nomination process, so the state cannot submit
its own projects. He responded that TAP or STBG could be used
as funding for the pedestrian corridors along the Seward
Highway; however, NHS would be the preferred funding. In
response to whether the TRAAK money goes to the Department of
Natural Resources, he said that TRAAK is a state program, not
federal, so there is no TRAAK funding. The funding source for
this is a small piece that comes in through recreational trail
funding. He stated that the $17 million is a STBG set aside.
He responded that TAP funding has fewer eligibilities and would
be used to connect communities to places, as opposed to
recreational purposes.
1:53:35 PM
MR. MARKS, in reference to the composition of STIP, stated that
most of the mandatory programs are federal. In example, he
listed the following: the Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP), the National Highways Freight Program (NHFP), Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), and Preservation and
Maintenance (PM). He stated that all these programs have either
a data driven federal requirement or a policy that dictates how
this is done, such as PM. He stated that NHFP and the new
PROTECT program require resiliency plans. He discussed the
different apportionments, pointing out that NHPP comprises over
half the funding, and STBG comprises about 25 percent of the
funding. He said all the other programs are in these mandatory
programs and projects. In reference to CMAQ, he responded to a
committee question concerning defined air quality areas in the
state. He said that there are maintenance areas and
nonattainment areas, and both qualify. For example, he pointed
out Anchorage, Eagle River, and areas of Juneau with dust,
stating it is usually urban areas which qualify.
1:56:31 PM
MR. MARKS pointed out the cyclical process on slide 12 which
addresses the call for projects. He explained that each step
with highlighted yellow icons are areas in which the public can
be involved. Proceeding to slide 13, he said this gives a
detailed view of what a call for projects looks like. In
general, it takes 15 to 16 months. Components which can be
expedited are also the ones the public does not want to move
faster, because the public needs time to understand the
projects. He stated that there are four major steps: pre-public
notice and program prep at one- and one-half months; public
notice of intent to apply at five- and one-half months; call for
projects at six months, and review by the project evaluation
board at about two months.
MR. MARKS stated that the first major step is the pre-public
notice and program prep, which entails a statewide meeting. He
stated that there are two different online public websites and a
statewide mailing list. This phase came into existence because
communities said that there was not enough time to apply after
the notice of intent phase, which is the most important step to
being eligible for the rest of the project. He explained that
some things are not known at the pre-public notice, such as
criteria, because it is still being developed. He suggested
creating a timeline using notifications of regulations and the
notice of intent. At this time the public could be introduced
to planners. In summary, this phase is a pre-public notice of
the general eligibilities, with a look back at the last cycle to
indicate which types of projects did well. He suggested that
this gives lead time to identify projects.
2:01:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the opinion that by the time the
public is notified, DOT&PF has already committed to projects.
He questioned the germination time of the projects and the point
when DOT&PF would take into consideration public notices.
MR. MARKS responded that DOT&PF already is collecting the public
needs. He referred to the previous slide which showed the
source of all the needs. He stated that this comes from DOT&PF
performance and condition data, where public needs are
considered. He stated that this is an opportunity to add any
additional issues, as projects go through the review process,
working out the details.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned how a project is germinated,
concerning public input and sponsors. He expressed the opinion
that projects begin in a bureaucrat's office without public
input. He expressed concern that the public has no way to shut
the project down once it is sponsored and moving forward.
MR. MARKS responded that he could put together a more detailed
response to this concern. He stated that he cannot speak to the
past, but going forward, there are a lot of people in the
administration and agency who are interested in local needs and
public needs. He suggested that by putting more public into the
process could change the paradigm. Trying to figure out how to
do this requires balancing the needs of the state while
maintaining facilities and taking care of the economy, for
example. But also, there is the question of balancing this with
the volume, and part of that is connecting and getting the right
requirements together. This is why the regulations have
political subdivisions. He stated that Representative McCabe is
right, there are a series of bureaucracies that the public must
go through. He stated that the question becomes: "How do we
make this shift."
2:05:40 PM
MR. MARKS, in response to Representative Hannan, pointed out the
cycle on slide 12 represents about a two-year effort. The
regulations require a review of CTP and TRAAK every three years,
which would put the project delivery time at four to eight
years. He stated that DOT&PF is trying to expedite some of
these things, and looking at getting a more routine cadence, and
a lot of people are being mobilized to get this done.
2:07:39 PM
CHAIR HOPKINS noted some projects in Fairbanks have been
canceled because of public input, while others went forward. He
questioned the criteria which allows for one project to move
forward and one to be stopped in this process. He questioned
whether public input affected this. He suggested that more
local input may be needed.
MR. MARKS stated he would follow up with a response.
2:08:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE noted that over the next five years there
will be $3.5 billion in funding for highways and $225 million in
funding for bridges. He noted that some bridges have been built
but never used. He commented on the amount of funding in
bureaucracy and expressed the opinion it is often spent on
unneeded items when the money should be used elsewhere, such as
AMHS or airports. He suggested that other projects may be more
desired by the public. He continued listing projects which need
funding. He expressed concern over the "huge" amount of money
coming into a "huge" bureaucracy, and the public has been
ignored.
CHAIR HOPKINS concurred with Representative McCabe.
2:10:47 PM
MR. MARKS, continuing with the presentation, stated that the
next phase is the public notice of intent to apply. In this
phase the draft criteria will be released, with about two months
for feedback and updates to the criteria. He stated that the
criteria for CTP and TRAAK are defined by regulation, but how
the data can be used is not in regulation; therefore, updates
can happen here, and priorities can be determined. He stated
that public input at this point is important, and the call for
projects will be funded simultaneously. He advised that the
projects need to be in the process at this point; however,
sponsors are not required to have fully developed projects.
Templets will be put out with the general details listed. There
will be regional planning meetings with online public notices.
He reiterated that this would not be detailed scopes, schedules,
and estimates, but just an overview of the projects.
MR. MARKS moved to slide 16. He stated that in the call for
projects phase, the final project criteria are published with
revisions. A change log will show the differences between what
is started with and what happened. This would demonstrate how
public input is used with changes. He added that projects
sponsors are counseled by planning staff at this point, and the
scopes, schedules, and estimates will be detailed. There will
be geotechnical work, such as traffic counts, safety statistics,
and maintenance and operation costs. This will determine the
amount a municipality or political subdivision is willing to
contribute financially. He advised that this phase is the
longest, taking about five to six months.
2:14:41 PM
MR. MARKS, in response to Chair Hopkins, pointed out regulations
stipulate that sponsors can be in the CTP program, the state, or
part of any of the state's political subdivisions. For example,
a sponsor could be Fairbanks, Bethal, or a municipality. He
stated that area planners can receive input and supply feedback
for CTP groups or the state.
2:16:05 PM
MR. MARKS, on slide 17, stated that once all packages are
received, the process moves to the last phase, or the Project
Evaluation Board, which is a one-to-two-day meeting. This
meeting is posted on public notice and can be attended
virtually. He stated that regulations stipulate that evaluators
score each project using the available criteria, which does not
change after it has been made public. Once scored, the projects
will be ranked; however, other factors beyond the scoring can
influence the programing of these projects. Other factors
include whether there is room in STIP, fiscal constraint, and
scheduling, which depends on the size of the project, and the
time it will take. He added that a project could be programed
further out in the 10-year plan. He stated that best-interest
findings can also take precedence. Notes from these meetings
are made available, and there are opportunities to comment on
the process.
2:17:55 PM
MR. MARKS, in response to Representative Drummond, said that
"OPN" means the Online Public Notice
2:18:53 PM
MR. MARKS continued to slide 18, which concluded the
presentation. He emphasized the importance of relationships and
connections throughout the process. He listed the takeaways as
being prepared, subscribing to the online public notice
delivery, and locating the area planners, as these people will
walk the project through the process, which includes using the
federal and state rules and regulations. He advised this will
give the project the best chance of success.
2:19:33 PM
MR. MARKS, responding to Chair Hopkins, stated that currently
the process is in the "pre-preplanning" stage. The new
infrastructure's net effect is still being understood, and there
are larger policy level decisions which need to be made. He
spoke about the level of funding which may or may not be
received and the effect this will have.
CHAIR HOPKINS questioned whether the next step is the intent to
apply process and should the committee members' districts begin
to develop ideas.
MR. MARKS responded that committee members should be aware the
call could get pushed out for any number of reasons, and people
should avoid spending time preparing things if the call gets
pushed out. He suggested waiting for the first notice from the
department. Responding to a follow-up question, he stated that
having a list of priorities would be ideal. There will not be a
lot of funding put into developing scopes, schedules, and
estimates before the initial triaging step during the notice of
intent to apply. But communities should get prepared and start
talking with stakeholders in their areas to get a prioritized
list. He suggested it would be too early to put DOT&PF
engineering resources into scheduling estimates.
2:22:47 PM
CHAIR HOPKINS, drawing attention to the electronic STIP (eSTIP),
questioned whether this would be a way to put in for smaller
projects.
MR. MARKS responded that whether this exists within eSTIP or
another platform, the department is trying to get things to be
map based and visual, so a facility can be clicked on, and what
is needed can be identified. He stated that the department
would like everything to exist all on one platform, making
management and transparency of the process easier. He cautioned
that eSTIP is in the very early stages of implementation, and it
is being done in phases, with customization further down the
road.
2:24:23 PM
CHAIR HOPKINS thanked Mr. Marks.
2:25:23 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:25
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 2022-01-27 H-Trnsp -STIP 201+CFP Slide Deck_V.1.1.pdf |
Htra 1/27/2022 1:00:00 PM |