04/10/2025 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB26 | |
| HJR14 | |
| Presentation: Department of Transportation's Role in Emergency Response | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 26 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 14 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
April 10, 2025
1:01 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ashley Carrick, Co-Chair
Representative Ted Eischeid, Co-Chair
Representative Genevieve Mina
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Kevin McCabe
Representative Elexie Moore
Representative Cathy Tilton
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 26
"An Act relating to the duties of the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities; and relating to a
statewide public and community transit plan."
- MOVED CSHB 26(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 14
Supporting the completion of the Port MacKenzie Rail Extension
and the Northern Rail Extension; supporting the increase in
defensive capabilities at Fort Greely, Alaska; encouraging a
renewed commitment by the Alaska Railroad to a community-minded
approach to future rail expansion; and encouraging the
development of critical Arctic infrastructure.
- HEARD & HELD
PRESENTATION: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S ROLE IN EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 26
SHORT TITLE: STATEWIDE PUBLIC & COMMUNITY TRANSIT PLAN
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MINA
01/22/25 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/10/25
01/22/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/22/25 (H) CRA, TRA
02/27/25 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
02/27/25 (H) Heard & Held
02/27/25 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/18/25 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
03/18/25 (H) Heard & Held
03/18/25 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/20/25 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
03/20/25 (H) Moved CSHB 26(CRA) Out of Committee
03/20/25 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/21/25 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) 4DP 1DNP 1AM
03/21/25 (H) DP: HOLLAND, HALL, HIMSCHOOT, MEARS
03/21/25 (H) DNP: PRAX
03/21/25 (H) AM: RUFFRIDGE
03/27/25 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/27/25 (H) Heard & Held
03/27/25 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
04/01/25 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/01/25 (H) Heard & Held
04/01/25 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
04/10/25 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HJR 14
SHORT TITLE: PORT MACKENZIE & NORTHERN RAIL EXTENSIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MCCABE
03/21/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/21/25 (H) TRA
04/10/25 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
ANDY MILLS, Legislative Liaison, Special Assistant to the
Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on CSHB 26(CRA) and
during the PowerPoint presentation by the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities.
CHRISTOPHER GOINS, Regional Director
Southcoast Region
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a PowerPoint, titled "Alaska
DOT&PF's Role in Emergency Response."
JASON SAKALASKAS, Chief
Maintenance and Operations
Northern Region
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a PowerPoint, titled "Alaska
DOT&PF's Role in Emergency Response."
ACTION NARRATIVE
1: 01:32 PM
CO-CHAIR ASHLEY CARRICK called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:01 p.m. Representatives Mina,
Stutes, McCabe, Eischeid, and Carrick were present at the call
to order. Representatives Tilton and Moore arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 26-STATEWIDE PUBLIC & COMMUNITY TRANSIT PLAN
1:02:10 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 26, "An Act relating to the duties of
the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities; and
relating to a statewide public and community transit plan."
[Before the committee was CSHB 26(CRA).]
1:02:56 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK moved to adopt Amendment 1 to CSHB 26(CRA),
labeled 34-LS0276\N.1, Walsh, 4/4/25, which read as follows:
Page 3, lines 8 - 9:
Delete "public and community transit operators,
including ferry operators, local governments,
communities, and tribal entities"
Insert "metropolitan planning organizations,
local governments, communities, tribal entities, and
public and community transit operators, including
ferry operators"
CO-CHAIR CARRICK objected for the purpose of discussion. She
spoke to the amendment, stating that this would include
metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in the development of
a community transit plan.
CO-CHAIR CARRICK withdrew her objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 1 to CSHB 26(CRA) was adopted.
1:04:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA moved to adopt Amendment 2 to CSHB 26(CRA),
labeled 34-LS0276\N.2, Walsh, 4/4/25, as amended, which read as
follows:
Page 3, line 8:
Delete "cooperation"
Insert "coordination"
CO-CHAIR CARRICK objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE MINA explained that replacing "cooperation" with
"coordination" would conform the language concerning
stakeholders on page 2, line 5 of the proposed legislation.
1:05:08 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK removed her objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 2 was adopted to CSHB 26(CRA), as amended.
1:05:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA moved to adopt Amendment 3 to CSHB 26(CRA),
labeled 34-LS0276\N.3, Walsh, 4/4/25, as amended, which read as
follows:
Page 2, line 5:
Delete "local governments and tribal entities"
Insert "metropolitan planning organizations,
local governments, communities, tribal entities, and
public and community transit operators, including
ferry operators"
CO-CHAIR CARRICK objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE MINA explained the purpose of Amendment 3 would
be similar as the previous amendment, as it would make the
language in the proposed legislation consistent.
1:06:36 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK removed her objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 3 was adopted to CSHB 26(CRA), as amended.
1:06:58 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID moved to report CSHB 26(CRA), as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
1:07:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE objected, stating that he does not
[generally] oppose the bill; however, he argued that the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) is
already doing this work, and he questioned the necessity of the
proposed bill. He expressed the opinion that "this is an
Anchorage bill" and has nothing to do with his constituents and
those in some of the other remote parts of the Interior. In
conclusion, he expressed opposition to the proposed legislation.
1:08:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA explained that even if DOT&PF is doing this
work now, leadership and federal rules could change; therefore,
active work on multimodal transportation planning and public
transit planning would not be guaranteed. In terms of this
being an "Anchorage bill," she stated that, while DOT&PF can do
this for all areas in the state, in current statute it is only a
requirement for urban transportation. She argued that the
current statute is biased towards Anchorage, and the proposed
legislation would remove the term "urban" because it is
outdated. She reiterated that the proposed legislation would
ensure DOT&PF would work on transit options in areas other than
the larger cities in the state. She noted the funding issues
and added that this would make sure community groups are
involved with the department to address their community
concerns. She added that including MPOs would allow others to
be included in the process.
1:11:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES thanked the sponsor of the proposed bill
for including ferry operators, as this represents rural areas.
1:11:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE argued that the 8,200 Alaskans in
Southeast, Kodiak, and Dutch Harbor would not include villages,
such as Ruby, as it could use a ferry. He continued that the
proposed legislation would not address the villages of Healy,
Denali, Cantwell, Willow, or Talkeetna. He stated that it would
do nothing to solve the issue of transportation between Healy
and Fairbanks, which is a problem for Healy, as it has no health
care services. He argued that this would not even service Big
Lake. He explained that for him to support the proposed
legislation, the needed additions would create too great an
expense. He commented that on the fiscal note, the department
has stated that it is already doing everything it can. He
expressed appreciation for the proposed legislation; however, he
expressed opposition.
1:13:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON noted that the fiscal note is zero because
DOT&PF is already doing the work. She argued that if things
were to change, the fiscal note would change as well, and more
costs would be incurred. She expressed opposition to the
proposed bill.
1:14:11 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID commented on his experience in rural
Wisconsin, where a transit system accessed rural places. He
shared his experience as a city planner for the Matanuska-
Susitna Borough, stating that transportation planners had
discussed issues concerning those who live in remote areas. He
suggested that talking and planning would lead to action. He
expressed support for the proposed legislation.
1:15:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA requested that Andy Mills speak to the
proposed legislation, concerning the changes in [paragraph (5)].
Per this, she questioned whether rural areas would be included
in the community transit plan.
1:16:20 PM
ANDY MILLS, Legislative Liaison, Special Assistant to the
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities, responded that the
department's work already consists of area and statewide
planning. Concerning Representative McCabe's comment, he stated
that no matter the planning, without additional funding there
will be no service to the remote areas. He continued that
without additional resources, he could not envision a path for
new services.
1:17:27 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK expressed support for the proposed legislation,
as her district has many semiurban areas, and a transportation
plan here is important. She commented on the zero fiscal note,
recognizing that in the future the bill could generate a fiscal
impact. She opined that the fiscal impact would be positive if
it led to better connectivity for communities, such as Healy.
She expressed the opinion that MPOs need to be included. She
noted that there would be a statewide effect for rural
communities because of the inclusion of ferry and tribal
consultation.
1:19:03 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID opined that, from a former planner's
perspective, plans are the envisioned future of a community;
with a robust process involving public comment and professional
planners, the result would be a roadmap for the future, and the
funding would follow. He suggested that often a plan is needed
to receive a grant, so a plan would be a first step.
1:20:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA, in closing, shared that she had joined the
Public Transit Advisory Board in Anchorage in 2017, when the
board had been undergoing a plan for Transit on the Move. She
stated that the plan was the result of a decline in ridership,
and the board was trying to determine what needs were not being
met. She pointed out there had been robust community
involvement, but there was no new funding or new routes. She
stated that the plan was created with the direction of community
members who use the service. She continued that a few years
later, the municipality had been able to work out the funding
for the Transit on the Move plan. She argued that even if the
funding were not available, planning would be important to
understand the needs of the community. She concluded that the
proposed legislation represents transparency and accountability.
1:22:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE stated that if the proposed bill were a
statewide plan, he would offer an amendment to include rail
stops in Anchorage, Wasilla, Houston, Talkeetna, Cantwell,
Healy, and Fairbanks. He argued that this would provide
community transport and involve the Alaska Railroad. He
suggested that this would change the railroad's focus from
tourism. He maintained his objection.
1:23:47 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK expressed appreciation for Representative
McCabe's suggestion.
1:24:04 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Moore, Stutes,
Mina, Eischeid, and Carrick voted in favor of the motion to
report CSHB 26(CRA), as amended, out of committee.
Representatives Tilton and McCabe voted against it. Therefore,
CSHB 26(TRA) was reported out of the House Transportation
Standing Committee by a vote of 5-2.
1:24:52 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:24 p.m. to 1:28 p.m.
HJR 14-PORT MACKENZIE & NORTHERN RAIL EXTENSIONS
1:28:56 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 14, Supporting the completion of
the Port MacKenzie Rail Extension and the Northern Rail
Extension; supporting the increase in defensive capabilities at
Fort Greely, Alaska; encouraging a renewed commitment by the
Alaska Railroad to a community-minded approach to future rail
expansion; and encouraging the development of critical Arctic
infrastructure.
1:29:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE, as prime sponsor, introduced HJR 14. He
stated that the Northern Rail Extension project and the Port
MacKenzie Rail Extension project would strengthen the state's
infrastructure, defense capabilities, and resiliency. He stated
that Alaska's strategic location on the Arctic Ocean, coupled
with the growing defense operations at Fort Greely, underscores
the urgency for the need to complete the two rail extension
projects, as proposed by HJR 14.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE stated that the Northern Rail Extension
project would enhance the state's defense infrastructure. He
pointed out that the completion is 70 miles from Fort Greely and
Delta Junction, including the Tanana River crossing. He stated
that the Port MacKenzie Rail Extension project, with support
from the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) Borough and the Alaska
Railroad, is near completion. It would provide a range of
benefits, including reduced energy costs, reduced emissions, and
improved transportation costs of key goods, such as coal to tide
water. He pointed out that this extension project would align
with the current federal administration's goal of unlocking
Alaska's resources and increasing energy exports.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE suggested that the rail extensions would
alleviate road congestion, enhance supply chain resilience, and
create jobs, while ensuring greater affordability for Alaskans.
Furthermore, the proposed resolution would encourage the Alaska
Railroad to engage with local communities. He summarized that
the proposed resolution is not only about transportation
infrastructure, but also about securing Alaska's economic
future, strengthening defense, securing resiliency for residents
in the Interior, and enhancing energy security. He noted the
letters of support for HJR 14.
1:33:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES commented on the letter of support from
the mayor and manager of the Mat-Su Borough. She noted that the
letter was not addressed to most of the committee members and
questioned the reason for this. She also questioned why the
extension projects had stopped.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE responded that the letter in question was
addressed to the delegation of the Mat-Su Borough, as this was
who requested the letter in support. In response to the second
question, he explained that the projects had not stopped because
of funding, and he pointed out the bridge over the Tanana River
had cost $2 million. He added that it is the longest bridge in
the state, but "it goes absolutely nowhere." He noted that the
money has been spent, but the project is not complete. He
pointed out that $184 million of state money was spent on the
Port MacKenzie Rail Extension project. He said, "It's the
largest, most expensive snowmobile trail in the world," and he
suggested it is now a "highway for criminals." He explained
that there are 7.2 miles left to construct. There had been a
right-of-way issue, he said, but once this was resolved, there
was no more funding.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE, in response to a series of follow-up
questions, stated that the railbed is there, but there are no
tracks. He added that it is in good shape, except for some one-
lane bridges. He responded that there is no railroad steel laid
down yet, only a roadbed. He continued that the railroad has
estimated the cost of completion to be $290 million; however,
from other sources, he has heard a maximum estimate of $150
million. He posed the question of why it would cost the Alaska
Railroad more. He noted that the Federal Railroad
Administration has also provided lower estimates, and he
expressed the opinion that politics has influenced the
estimates. In response to a question concerning the number of
tracks laid in the last 25 years, he stated that no miles of
running track have been laid. He responded that he would
provide the committee with maps of the projects.
1:42:35 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK commented on the letter of support from the
Alaska Railroad, which listed the cost of completing the 32-mile
Port MacKenzie Rail Extension project as $275 million to $300
million. She questioned how much this would be per mile, and
she questioned whether this cost would be reflected in any other
rail project.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE responded that this would be around $14
million per mile. He expressed the opinion that a fraction of
the cost would finish the project, and he suggested that the
high price is because of politics. In response to a question
concerning whether the railroad has been proactive, he expressed
the opinion that the Alaska Railroad's $484 million estimate
speaks for how proactive the railroad has been. He stated that
the Alaska Railroad had applied for a federal grant from the
Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI)
Program last year, but it had been rejected because the
application was incorrect. He noted that the railroad plans to
apply for the grant again this year; however, the railroad has
said it does not have the needed letters of support from
Alaska's Congressional Delegation and the governor. He
expressed the understanding that support has been voiced from
these entities. He suggested that the railroad might be
concerned about the anchor tenant in Port MacKenzie; however, he
expressed doubt on the concept of an "anchor tenant." He argued
that for the growth of resources in the state, the Port
MacKenzie Rail Extension project would need to be completed.
1:47:53 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID referenced the letter in support from the
Alaska Railroad and expressed the desire to ask the railroad
questions concerning the estimated cost. He questioned the
intent of the language on page 3, lines 15-19, of the proposed
resolution, which requests that the railroad renew its
commitment to a "community-minded approach".
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the observation that the Alaska
Railroad has struggled with community relations and those who
live on the right-of-way. He suggested that this would urge the
railroad, which is owned by Alaskans, to take a more community-
minded stance with everything.
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID expressed appreciation for the sentiment;
moreover, he voiced skepticism about organizations and
government entities that are based away from communities. He
noted that metropolitan planning organizations have the same
concern with the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities' ability to stay sensitive to local concerns.
1:51:35 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK expressed appreciation for the inclusion of the
clause under discussion. She noted that encouraging the
railroad to be more accessible to Alaskans also relates to the
proposed legislation [HB 26] heard earlier in the meeting. She
shared a personal anecdote about railroad travel and its
affordability in the past. She noted that now flying and
driving are less expensive and quicker than rail travel in the
state. She opined that if it were less expensive, more people
would use the railway. She stated that the resolution is
"critically" important, noting the support from mine developers
and industrial purposes. She suggested a clause in the proposed
resolution to highlight this purpose.
1:53:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE noted that this type of legislation has
been offered before, and it passed. He opined that HJR 14 could
be used in support for the CRISI grant. He spoke to the success
of the railroad, as it has not gone bankrupt and not asked the
state for money. He commended the Alaska Railroad on doing an
admirable job, especially through the COVID-19 pandemic;
however, he reiterated that the Alaska Railroad works for
Alaskans.
1:54:54 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK announced that HJR 14 was held over.
1:55:05 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:55 p.m. to 1:56 p.m.
^PRESENTATION: Department of Transportation's Role in Emergency
Response
PRESENTATION: Department of Transportation's Role in Emergency
Response
1:56:20 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK announced that the final order of business
would be a presentation by the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities' role in emergency response.
1:57:17 PM
CHRISTOPHER GOINS, Regional Director, Southcoast Region,
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF), co-
presented the PowerPoint, titled "Alaska DOT&PF's Role in
Emergency Response" [hard copy included in the committee
packet].
1:57:24 PM
JASON SAKALASKAS, Chief, Operations and Maintenance, Northern
Region, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, co-
presented the PowerPoint, titled "Alaska DOT&PF's Role in
Emergency Response."
1:57:33 PM
MR. GOINS began the presentation on slide 2 and stated that the
department's involvement in emergency response is in part to
maintain or restore safe access for medical, fire, and police
response. He continued that the department also takes a role
protecting state and public assets, such as from a flood. When
the department moves in to protect infrastructure, he said, it
looks to restore the asset to its original state and seeks to
improve its resiliency. He stated that DOT&PF is often there as
the first response; therefore, it can be involved in a variety
of emergencies, and when the governor declares an event as an
emergency, the department can become further involved. He
expressed the opinion that the department's ability to move
quickly with its contracting arm is better than any other entity
in the state.
2:00:00 PM
MR. SAKALASKAS moved to slide 3 and stated that the department
covers multiple modes of transportation: land, sea, and air.
These modes can vary between different communities and
locations. Understanding the needs of stakeholders and
communities in an emergency effects the department's ability to
respond and restore transportation systems. He stated that one
aspect of this is to understand the importance of each mode to
each community. He discussed the importance of maintaining
transportation systems during emergency operations.
2:02:02 PM
MR. GOINS moved to slide 4, which showed a partial list of
emergency responses the department has participated in over the
last seven months. The list covers various events over diverse
areas in the state, and he noted that the department must be
trained to respond to each. He moved to slide 5 and discussed
incident command structure (ICS). He noted that the department
uses the same structure as the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA). He said that using this structure allows for
scaling up or down the response quickly and joining in with
other ICSs more easily. He noted the department's involvement
with the State Emergency Operations Center (SEOC), as this
allows for better communication and the sharing of resources.
2:03:31 PM
MR. SAKALASKAS moved to slide 6 and gave examples of the
department's interactions with other agencies. He noted that
important partners would include those fighting wildfires in the
state, as traffic can be affected by this. He pointed out the
importance of having uniform messaging to the public in these
situations. He reiterated the quick response DOT&PF has with
its contractors, emphasizing the department's familiarity with
the different contractors in the state. This enables the
department to efficiently refer these contractors to the fire-
fighting entities.
MR. SAKALASKAS pointed out that DOT&PF also works with the
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs (DMVA) and SEOC. He
stated that these partnerships allow the department to reach
outside of its assets or responsibilities.
2:06:19 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK questioned the responsibility for clearcutting
along roads to help fire mitigation. She gave the example of
the Cooper Landing fire that "jumped the road."
MR. SAKALASKAS responded that the department's primary focus on
clearing the sides of roadways would be for safe visibility and
traffic concerns. He stated that the department sets its
clearing limits, while forestry entities would do additional
clearing in a response to an emergency. He expressed
uncertainty concerning the Cooper Landing event.
CO-CHAIR CARRICK clarified that the regular setback clearing on
either side of a road would be DOT&PF's decision; however,
during a fire event the department would coordinate with the
Department of Forestry and others to do further cutback along
the road.
MR. SAKALASKAS expressed general agreement with this statement.
He stated that fire services would be in charge, and they would
reach out to DOT&PF for support. He continued that it would be
up to the department on its response.
2:09:10 PM
MR. GOINS stated that Co-Chair Carrick's question is covered on
slide 7, which addresses right-of-way management. He discussed
the recent slide in Ketchikan, and he directed attention to the
aerial picture on slide 8. He noted the bypass on private
property that had to be created the day after the slide, as
people were cut off from road access. He reiterated that clear
communication with landowners is critical. He discussed the
importance of interdepartmental communication during an
emergency, noting that new technology plays a role. He stated
that public outreach is another important communication aspect
to emergency response, noting that social media plays an
important role for this.
2:13:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA questioned whether the department has access
to text alerts.
MR. GOINS responded that this tool has been used. In example,
he discussed being able to notify the public of building
closures.
MR. SAKALASKAS added that there is an option for text alerts.
2:13:52 PM
MR. GOINS moved to slide 9 and pointed out the new tools the
department is using. He stated that drones are just for
emergencies, but they have everyday uses as well. He discussed
the Alaska Rural Remote Operations Work Plan (ARROW), which is
used to enhance emergency remote response capabilities in 10
different Alaska communities. This is done by providing
uncrewed aerial systems that have access to a shared geographic
information system. He stated that this is important for
responding to disasters affecting critical infrastructure in
unserved areas. Used for disasters, he said, this technology
enables beyond-visual line-of-sight missions. He stated that
the Scalable Operations with Advanced Remote Technologies (SOAR)
program builds on ARROW technology, such as allowing long
distance drone flights to be able to respond in real time.
MR. GOINS described "drone in a box" technology, which is
connected to power and Starlink, and he said, "It has really
changed the game." He stated that this allows an individual
anywhere in the world to fly a drone and do mapping operations
and more. For example, it is useful in monitoring avalanche
conditions, while keeping the individuals monitoring safely on
the ground. He pointed out the pictures on the slide and stated
that many of the dangerous situations in natural disaster
response have been eased with the new drone technology. He
added that drones are able to replace the use of helicopters in
many instances, while Starlink has become crucial for collecting
data from the drones. Lastly, he pointed out that the
underwater submersible with underwater vision is available for
use in emergencies, not just for data collection.
2:19:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON questioned whether there is only one
state-owned underwater submersible drone.
MR. GOINS expressed the understanding that this is the only one
based in Juneau. He stated that it has allowed for a visual in
environmental work that has not been possible in the past. In
response to a follow-up question, he stated that
interdepartmental use of drones could be requested at any time.
He added that, through the governor's directive, his staff could
be available for use in emergencies across the state.
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON referenced a situation where the
underwater drone had been in use for an emergency; therefore, it
was not available for another emergency. She questioned whether
there are many emergencies in need of the drone at the same
time.
MR. GOINS responded that with this underwater drone "we are
scratching the surface" because there is only one. He related
the understanding that the department is "on the cutting edge"
with technology use; therefore, the equipment is not mass-
produced. In response to a follow-up question, he expressed
uncertainty on the cost of the underwater drone. As staff is
proving its utility, he expressed the belief there will be more
in the state. He deferred to Andy Mills.
2:24:28 PM
ANDY MILLS, Legislative Liaison, Special Assistant to the
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities, stated that the drone cost
around $70,000 to $100,000. He stated that the idea is to have
a system like this on each Alaska Marine Highway System ferry so
divers would not be needed in an emergency. He added that an
underwater drone could be used to survey pilings at docks and
more.
2:26:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE commented that DOT&PF, with AMHS, has been
involved in many, many rescues.
2:27:35 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID questioned whether the underwater drone is a
free-swimming or tethered device.
MR. GOINS, in response, provided that the drone is tethered.
MR. MILLS added that it has a tether on a spool. He discussed
some of the other features and innovations.
2:30:02 PM
MR. GOINS noted that using the underwater drone saves money, as
divers cost much more. He commented that because of the
department's use of cutting-edge flying drones, to maintain a
better connection, Starlink had move satellites for the
department.
MR. GOINS stated that slide 10 to slide 13 address recent
emergencies in the state, with the slides moving from least
complex to more complex situations. Slide 10 showed the
Wrangell landslide, and he stated that the initial response
concerned safety first, and this involved securing the site.
Crews then addressed search and rescue, and then search and
recovery. He discussed rapid damage assessment, ICS, and the
coordinating efforts. He said that ever since the Wrangell
slide there are ongoing efforts with drones to identify any
changes in the slope.
MR. GOINS moved to the next slide and discussed the Ketchikan
landslide. He stated that it was similar to the slide in
Wrangell but had a greater impact. He stated that a rapid
damage assessment was done, and using ICS, DOT&PF worked with
the borough because there were massive roadblocks. He pointed
out that the National Weather Service was involved because
weather affects risks. He stated that risk evaluations are
still being done on this area.
2:35:50 PM
MR. SAKALASKAS moved to the next slide and stated the event in
Merbok was more complex, as a storm had damaged assets of the
department and community, and a winter freeze was arriving soon.
He noted that freezing weather would stop any progress with
repairs. In discussing the damages, he indicated that the
airport runways had remained in good condition. He discussed
the design and location of airports, as this has been a
concentration for DOT&PF. He stated that the main roads in Nome
had been severely damaged, but with a local contractor onsite,
Nome Front Street was repaved before winter. Through
communication lines, the department was able to do community
outreach and address its needs, such as housing, heating
systems, and power. He noted that winter had set-in weeks after
the storm.
2:40:09 PM
MR. SAKALASKAS moved to slide 13 and discussed when the Sag
River flooded the Dalton Highway 10 years ago. He stated that
this disaster's complexity was because of stakeholder
involvement, but the ICS structure worked well. He noted that
the oil industry on the North Slope deals well with emergency
situations, pointing out that the department and the major
stakeholders were able to hold daily meetings.
MR. SAKALASKAS stated that 20 to 30 miles of the roadway were
covered in 3 to 4 feet of ice, resulting in a 7-to-10-day
closure. He stated that operations increased to 24 hours and
additional staff was brought in. Industry coordinated with the
department and other agencies to create a winter road in less
than 10 days, so moving goods and services around the Dalton
Highway could continue. He stated that once the ice event was
solved, there needed to be preparation for the spring melt. He
pointed out that the industry was prepared for this, and the
department was dynamic in dealing with the flood as well. He
discussed the reconstruction of the highway in terms of averting
future events. He pointed out that no other flooding event has
occurred in the last 10 years; he contributed this to initial
response and future projection.
2:45:37 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK thanked the presenters.
2:45:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES expressed appreciation for the
department's staff, and the emergency work they do.
2:46:57 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK made closing comments.
2:47:50 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:47
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HJR 14 Ver A. Support Letter. MSB Mayor and Manager.4.1.25.pdf |
HTRA 4/10/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 14 |
| HJR 14 Ver A.SupportLetter.CityofHouston.4.2.25.pdf |
HTRA 4/10/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 14 |
| HJR14 Ver A.Support Letter.City of Fairbanks.04.02.2025.pdf |
HTRA 4/10/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 14 |
| HJR14 Ver A SponsorStatement 3.27.25.pdf |
HTRA 4/10/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 14 |
| HJR14 Ver A.Support Letter Nova Minerals. 4.3.25.pdf |
HTRA 4/10/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 14 |
| HJR 14 Ver A. Support Letter ARRC.04.03.25.pdf |
HTRA 4/10/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 14 |
| HJR Ver A Support Letter.UpperSusitnaCC.4.8.25.pdf |
HTRA 4/10/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 14 |
| HB 26 Amendment Packet.pdf |
HTRA 4/10/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 26 |
| HJR 14 Ver A. Support Letter Denali Borough.4.10.25.pdf |
HTRA 4/10/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 14 |
| 20250410 HTRA DOTPF Emergency Response - FINAL.pdf |
HTRA 4/10/2025 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HJR14 Ver A Support Letter BigLakeCC.4.12.25.pdf |
HTRA 4/10/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 14 |