Legislature(2001 - 2002)
10/16/2001 09:58 AM Senate TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
October 16, 2001
9:58 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator John Cowdery, Chair
Senator Jerry Ward, Vice Chair (via teleconference)
Senator Robin Taylor (via teleconference)
Senator Gary Wilken (via teleconference)
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Kim Elton
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Joe Green
Representative Vic Kohring (via teleconference)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
KNIK ARM CROSSING
WITNESS REGISTER
Mr. Bill Sheffield, Director
Port of Anchorage
PO Box 196650
Anchorage, AK 99519
Mr. Bill Bredesen
2909 Arctic Blvd. #103
Anchorage, AK 99503
Mr. Dennis Nottingham
Peratrovich Nottingham & Drage Inc.
1506 W 36th Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99503
Mr. Allen Christopherson
Peratrovich Nottingham & Drage Inc.
1506 W 36th Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99503
Ms. Vicky Hutton Glenser
No address provided
Anchorage, AK
Mr. Devery Prince
505 W Northern Lights Blvd. #219
Anchorage, AK 99503
Mr. Frank Dillon, Executive Vice President
Alaska Trucking Association
Ms. Sarah Palin
Mayor of Wasilla
290 East Herning Ave.
Wasilla, AK 99654
Mr. Frank Dillon
Alaska Truckers Association
Anchorage, AK
Mr. Dick Katno, Executive Director
Associated General Contractors
No address provided
Mr. Jerry Stewart
19561 Upper Skyline Dr.
Eagle River, AK 99577
Mr. Glen Glenser
No address provided
Anchorage, AK
Mr. Cliff Ames
Alaska Center for the Environment
807 G St., #100
Anchorage AK 99501
Ms. Sandra Garley, Planning Director
Matanuska Susitna Borough
350 East Dahlia
Palmer, AK 99645
Mr. Jim Sykes
PO Box 696
Palmer, AK 99645
Mr. Michael Kean
900 W. 5th Ave. #300
Anchorage, AK 99577
Mr. Don Lowell
Alaska Transportation Consultants
PO Box 71114
Fairbanks, AK 99707
Mr. James Armstrong, Manager
Transportation Planning
Municipality of Anchorage
PO Box 196650
Anchorage, AK 99519
Mr. Marc Van Dongen, Port Director
Port of Mackenzie
Matanuska Susitna Borough
350 East Dahlia
Palmer, AK 99645
Mr. Dan Jacobsen
Mat-Su Valley
Alaska
Mr. Larry Whiting
PO Box 1549
Palmer, AK 99674
Mr. Carl Anderson
Tugboat Captain
Anchorage AK
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-23, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN JOHN COWDERY called the Senate Transportation Committee
meeting to order at 9:58 a.m. Present were Senators Taylor,
Wilken and Cowdery. Chairman Cowdery noted that a Knik Arm
crossing was studied many years ago; that study included tidal
power generation. In an effort to bring the best minds together
for a discussion on a Knik Arm Crossing, he scheduled this
meeting. He informed committee members that Congressman Young has
secured funds for a study and environmental impact statement. The
study will include a simulation model of Cook Inlet built by the
Corps of Engineers on acreage in Mississippi and will incorporate
the development of the port and of Fire Island. He asked former
Governor Bill Sheffield to testify first.
SENATOR WARD joined the committee via teleconference.
MR. BILL SHEFFIELD, director of the Port of Anchorage, said the
Knik Arm Crossing has been talked about for the 49 years he has
been in Alaska. One mayor, Ken Hinchey, had to resign because he
wanted to build a causeway and owned the only concrete company in
the area.
CHAIRMAN COWDERY noted the Rothschild study, which reviewed tidal
energy, occurred a little bit before Mayor Hinchey's term.
MR. SHEFFIELD said regarding tidal currents, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) plans to look at upper Cook
Inlet in December and will probably return in the spring to do a
full-fledge current and tide study from below Nikiski up to the
Port of Anchorage. That study will compile badly needed
information.
MR. SHEFFIELD informed the committee that the Port of Anchorage
is looking into building road and rail access behind the port to
provide for a freight facility to load containers on rail cars.
This major intermodal connection to the port will provide access
to a Knik Arm causeway or a bridge at Cairn Point. He felt it is
very important that a crossing include a rail link. Plan site
connections on both sides of Knik Arm to a Knik Arm crossing
should be looked at now and road systems developed to make it
work. Some funds were made available for an Ingra-Gambell
connection to the port and rail yard some time ago but nothing
has happened yet. The Ingra-Gambell, Fifth Avenue, Seward and
Glenn Highway connection must be considered. Mayor Wuertz has
promised to move the truck traffic out of downtown Anchorage. If
funds are appropriated by Congress this year to do an
environmental impact statement for the Knik Arm crossing, all of
that would come together - the crossing, the Ingra-Gambell, the
freeway into a rail yard and port, and a passage around
government hill. He assumes the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities (DOTPF) will provide leadership on that
project.
MR. SHEFFIELD maintained that Anchorage has run out of room to
grow: in 20 years, Anchorage will run out of residential land.
Acres and acres of developable land would be opened up if a Knik
Arm crossing is built. A crossing would also open up vast
recreational areas, shorten travel time to Fairbanks, provide for
the more efficient movement of freight, and provide for the
development of natural resources, which will create jobs. This
is a unique opportunity for economic development activities on a
regional basis and a way to provide for jobs. DOTPF is doing
some planning on the East Fifth Avenue - Seward Highway now.
When money becomes available, the state must be prepared to act.
The state, Municipality of Anchorage, and Mat-Su Borough will
have to work together to make this project happen.
CHAIRMAN COWDERY said he agrees 100 percent and that he believes
that Congressman Young has secured the funding for the
environmental impact statement, as well as other funding for the
necessary Mississippi project. He thanked Mr. Sheffield and
called the next person to testify.
MR. BILL BREDESEN, a commercial real estate broker in Anchorage,
said he considers the Knik Arm crossing to be one of the most
important projects to the future of the greater Anchorage area.
Since a Knik Arm crossing was first suggested by Mr. Hinchey,
almost every square foot of developable land has been eaten up.
He feels the quality of life issue is an important one. The 2020
plan calls for 80,000 more Alaskans [in Anchorage] by the year
2020. The people working on the master plan for the airport are
also concerned about a shortage of land and the Knik Arm crossing
was used in many of their scenarios as a component. For those
reasons alone, he supports a Knik Arm crossing.
MR. LARRY WHITING, a resident of Palmer, said he attended the
meeting to present the possibility of building a tunnel instead
of a bridge across Knik Arm. Tunnels have been designed and built
in Iceland that cross active seismic zones, one at a cost of $75
million five years ago. He encouraged the committee to choose the
least expensive project.
MR. DENNIS NOTTINGHAM, with Peratrovich, Nottingham, and Drage, a
consulting engineering firm, informed committee members that he
worked on this project as a state engineer in the early 1970s.
He advised the committee that projects go from harebrained ideas
to reality with time, therefore the paperwork for this project
needs to continue until the time comes when it is appropriate to
build this crossing. He said he cannot overemphasize the
importance of Chairman Cowdery's earlier statement about the need
for a cohesive study in the upper Cook Inlet area. Other related
development could be going on in upper Cook Inlet, for example
Fire Island and a ferry system. He believes the environmental
impact study will be done at a very opportune time. Whether
anything comes of that study is not as important as the ability
to consider all of the options.
MR. NOTTINGHAM turned to a discussion of the technical aspects of
a Knik Arm crossing. He showed a conceptual drawing of a
crossing at Cairn Point, one of the potential crossings mentioned
by Governor Sheffield. That crossing is about 12,000 feet - it
takes off from the bluffs and provides a relatively high level
clearance. Contrary to what many believe, the ground in that area
is hard and dense underneath and will provide a very good
foundation for a bridge. The Elmendorf Air Force Base side
requires about a one-mile clearance, so the access would have to
be designed to avoid that area. The geometrics will be very
important in the study of this crossing. The Port MacKenzie side
is not quite as critical but the other side has all kinds of
access constraints.
CHAIRMAN COWDERY noted there is talk of future ports and
development and asked whether that would happen on the Seward or
Palmer side of the bridge.
MR. NOTTINGHAM said the present port is down-inlet from Port
MacKenzie.
CHAIRMAN COWDERY asked if boats will have to go under the bridge
to get to the shipping facilities.
MR. NOTTINGHAM said they will not. As one goes up Inlet, it
shoals, so the crossing will have to be designed so that it does
not impact any port development on that side. He suggested that
a girder system will have to be used with 400 to 600 foot spans
and heavy piers placed intermittently. The piers would be used in
deep water, up to 100 feet, similar to those used for the 15 oil
platforms in the inlet. Similar piers are also used for the
North Slope where ice forces are much greater. The dense
foundation underwater would probably support pilings, either
driven or drilled.
CHAIRMAN COWDERY asked if all piers would be uniform.
MR. NOTTINGHAM said the only thing that would differ would be the
length of the piles.
CHAIRMAN COWDERY asked if the pilings, or tripods, would be about
10 feet in diameter and filled with concrete.
MR. NOTTINGHAM said the range would be from 8 to 10 feet. He told
members similar designs have been used in the past. A bridge
across the Yukon River carrying the TransAlaska pipeline was
designed in 1971 by the Department of Highways. Its spans are 410
ft. and the ice gets to 5 ft. thick, which is twice as thick as
ice in Cook Inlet. He noted, "These kinds of technical problems
are not difficult."
He noted that the highest towers on the Yukon River crossing are
120 ft. high, not unlike ones that would be on the Knik Arm. Even
after 30 years, the Yukon crossing is the most sophisticated
bridge design ever built. He stated, "An airplane could run into
the side of this bridge, cut it in half and it would not fall
down. It is designed for that event."
MR. NOTTINGHAM showed committee members pictures of the big
steel, tortionally resistant box girders and said, "In other
words, if you chop one of those girders in half, it can't twist
and fall over. The other one is stiff and holds the other girder
up. That's how these work."
He explained the bridge is made out of orthotropic steel. The
pipeline hangs from brackets on the side. It has room on the
other side for the gas line; that was the original design intent
clear back in 1971. He stated, "The Knik Arm crossing wouldn't be
any more different; it wouldn't be any more difficult."
CHAIRMAN COWDERY asked if any private companies would benefit
from this crossing and whether they should participate in some of
the costs of these studies.
MR. NOTTINGHAM answered that some might benefit:
Normally, private companies benefit best by being on
some sort of toll use rate or some kind of rate like
that. In other words, they don't have to put a lot of
cash up front, but they can pay for it as they go.
CHAIRMAN COWDERY remarked the Corps of Engineers study says they
have to include everything, Fire Island and the Port development.
MR. NOTTINGHAM said he was talking about the construction, but
the people who would potentially benefit would probably be
willing to participate in the study.
MR. ALLEN CHRISTOPHERSON, Peratrovich, Nottingham and Drage, said
they had talked to some of the shippers who might be interested.
10:30 a.m.
MS. VICKY HUTTON GLENSER commented:
Years ago when that study was put out, the biggest
concern with the shippers was that the bridge was
coming over the shipping lane and the shippers' concern
was the area between the pilings. They only have a
certain amount of space. If they lost control of a ship
or barge, then it would be coming through and it would
be heading directly for these pilings. Has any change
been made as far as the design of spacing the pilings?
MR. NOTTINGHAM replied that designers always create the longest
span possible on these types of bridges. It is also the most
economic way to go. Here they are limited to the type of bridge
they can use; 600 feet would be the span. He explained, "We have
pushed the alignment further up the Inlet, so you're as far away
from the Port as possible."
MR. CHRISTOPHERSON inserted that there has been no design and
that those issues need to be looked at. The piers need to be
improved or strengthened in the event of ice or a ship hitting
them. The alignment, if further up Cook Inlet, would have less
conflict with vessels.
MR. DEVERY PRINCE, Alaskan resident, said he supports this
project for the following reasons.
· Safety - presently, there is only one road in and out of
Anchorage and the congestion is too severe. There have even
been incidents of road rage in Anchorage.
· Commerce - a crossing would lower the transportation costs
of goods sold across the state and open up new areas. It
would also encourage new growth in the economy.
· Lifestyle - the transportation corridor will allow people to
live in a more suburban type of area. Larger lots across the
Inlet were condensed. A crossing would help families get out
of the city to enjoy the outdoors faster, which is
important.
· Inefficiency - it's inefficient to drive 45 miles around
Cook Inlet each way just to access recreation or business.
It's a waste of time and fuel.
· Total transportation corridor bill - it should look at
several things. It should support Alaska for the next 100
years. On the lower level, it should accommodate electrical
transmission lines built for anticipated growth, a natural
gas line, telecommunications fiber cables and the railroad.
He thought the upper level should support six lanes of
traffic. He would be willing to pay a toll to use this
bridge and believes businesses should pay a higher toll.
· Access - the access should push due north and connect with
the Parks Highway near Willow and other areas.
· Build it now - There are three reasons why it should be
built now - not 30 years from now. Right now Alaska has the
strongest congressional delegation it's likely to have for
the next 30 years.
· It's a bargain - DOTPF projects typically cost the state 20
percent of total cost. There are no valid reasons why it
shouldn't be done now.
MR. PRINCE said he thought leadership should step forward and
lead.
CHAIRMAN COWDERY said they talked about putting a railroad across
but the load structure would increase dramatically. He thought
the railroad had funds to put a line in from the Palmer-Wasilla
area to Pt. Mackenzie with the vision of creating an industrial
site.
MR. FRANK DILLON, Executive Vice President, Alaska Trucking
Association, said he hopes the study will be broad enough to
consider rail and motor vehicle traffic. He stated, "We really
want to have a comprehensive study in which folks that are
fundamentally against doing anything are going to have trouble
poking holes in."
MR. DICK CATTANACH, Executive Director, Associated General
Contractors, encouraged the committee to continue with the study
with all due haste.
MS. SARAH PALIN, Mayor of Wasilla, said there has been a lot of
discussion on this issue and much of the consensus is that it's
now or never with our congressional delegation in place. She
would do all she could to further the opportunities for the
residents in Wasilla.
MR. JERRY STEWART, Alaska resident, stated support for a Knik Arm
crossing.
MR. GLEN GLENSER, former director of the Port of Anchorage, said
he talked to Ken Hinchey about this project when it would have
cost a couple of million dollars. When he was an ADC manager, he
brought Baron Van Rothschild to Alaska for a week, who came up
with an elaborate system of three dikes, which made a lot of
sense. Governor Sheffield had John Olson, an engineer, worked out
some provisions for tax breaks to help fund tolls, but it went by
the wayside. He also advocated for a north/south runway at the
airport before an accident actually happened (with Senator
Stevens' wife involved) that precipitated it. He said, "Don't let
the thing diddle on the wayside. Get something done, because it
can be done. We've got bridges all over the place."
MR. GLENSER suggested using the work that's been done: "You don't
have to reinvent the wheel."
MR. CLIFF AMES, Alaska Center for the Environment, asked, "What
do we want to spend our still relatively limited transportation
funding on - both capital funding and maintenance funding?"
He noted that figures from the Anchorage Transportation Coalition
show the capital costs of this project would be about $1-$2
billion, which is as much as the state spends on capital
transportation projects over three years. He said that
maintenance is always a big problem and the toll system would be
a big plus. Without it, they would be spending about 10 percent
of Anchorage's total maintenance budget annually, which means
that other roads wouldn't get maintained.
TAPE 01-23, SIDE B
MR. AMES said the major thing to consider is urban sprawl. It
affects areas where people live, not areas that are sparsely
populated. He said:
We would be losing open space and fish and wildlife
habitat if we encourage development in the Pt.
Mackenzie area instead of doing what our comprehensive
plan suggested, and that is in-building on some of the
underused or unused acreages in Anchorage.
If reducing commuting time for existing commuters is a
major goal of the project, it just really doesn't meet
those goals.
He presented figures showing that about 10 percent of the
existing commuters would have a quicker commute with the Knik Arm
crossing while 90 percent would still use the Glen Highway.
MR. AMES said that an interesting wrinkle is the Anchorage
Airport Master Plan process that is happening now. He explained:
One of the alternatives is to move the Anchorage
Airport cargo operations over to Pt. Mackenzie, which
may or may not mean they would want to build a Knik Arm
crossing in order to access that supplemental airport.
It's not altogether clear that that is the case, since
a lot of the cargo operations are touch and go and some
of those that aren't touch and go are actually merely
repackaging cargo and putting them from one plane to
another and don't require a trip into the Anchorage
center. So, we are basically raising a number of
questions that we think should be answered before we
decide to build a project and that's what would happen
with the studies that are being proposed at the present
time.
CHAIRMAN COWDERY said he had been an Anchorage resident for a
long time and has seen the wetlands developed and the Anchorage
Bowl run out of room. He envisioned a twin city concept with
everything coming across the bridge - like Minneapolis and St.
Paul. He said they used to build on solid gravel ground, but they
ran out of that. He pointed out:
Now our solid gravel is coming from the valley to fill
in marginal land to build on. I think the one-acre lots
is a sham. I think we'd have a sewer facility over
there that would be tied into ours or their own.
MR. AMES responded that their proposal is not to fill existing
Anchorage wetlands, but to use land that's already been disturbed
and can be built on or used for a more beneficial purpose.
CHAIRMAN COWDERY asked what land he is talking about.
MR. AMES said it is identified in the comprehensive plan.
MS. SANDRA GARLEY, Planning Director, Mat-Su Borough, reinforced
the concept that if a Knik Arm Crossing is built, it would
provide economic development for the whole region. It has a
broader impact when you look at the need for providing secondary
access for not just the local commuters, but for everyone on the
road system who needs to get to Anchorage from time to time. She
pointed out, "It takes only a minor traffic accident to really
shut down that freight movement and that commuter movement."
MS. GARLEY also emphasized that an Environmental Impact Statement
will provide an opportunity to identify and resolve some of the
questions that have been raised.
CHAIRMAN COWDERY said that Congressman Young assured him that
funds are in place for the EIS along with $1-$2 million for
studies that might need to be done. He added that the Knik Arm
crossing would cut one-hour travel time from Fairbanks and
interior Alaska.
MR. JIM SYKES said he supports going forward with the study, but
he hopes it was comprehensive in nature and tied to realistic
projections for the future. He stated:
I certainly encourage consideration of development of
not just the cargo ports on Fire Island, but to
consider moving the actual Anchorage Airport to Fire
Island, which would make available some pretty good
land for residential and other purposes in Anchorage.
If the Knik Arm bridge is going to be built, I strongly
urge you to include realistic estimates for tapping
tidal energy, which we have almost uniquely available
to us from anywhere in the world. There are estimates
now saying that there will be shortages of Cook Inlet
gas of residential gas and generation as early as 2004
and perhaps as late as 2007. So, I think we really do
seriously need to consider electrical generation with
tidal energy.
MR. SYKES also stated support for a rail and gas line as part of
the design. The study should tie gas in with Southcentral Alaska
and Interior Alaska because future forms of energy could use this
corridor. Mr. Sykes commented, "It's a major project. It's not
just a bridge, I would suggest to you and it needs to be very
thoroughly studied..."
MR. SYKES cautioned committee members about counting on federal
money, because of September 11 and because the current delegation
may not be there forever. The federal government is a little
stingy when it comes to operating and maintaining projects it has
funded. This leads to a downward spiral if we continue to accept
federal funds for roads that we can't afford to maintain. The
committee needs to consider the existing transportation system
and upgrades to it that might actually be more cost effective,
like a parallel road to the Glen Highway that upgrades the old
Glen Highway.
MR. SYKES said that even though he heard testimony about an
immediate need, he doesn't believe it is there. Other communities
with bridges that have been mentioned have much larger
populations and greater economies. He asked members, "Please
don't get into the concept that if we build it, they will come."
MR. SYKES said he supports going ahead with the study, but asked
the committee to make sure it is comprehensive.
CHAIRMAN COWDERY responded that many people are attending the
meeting on a workday indicating a lot of interest in this
project.
MR. MICHAEL KEAN, a private citizen, stated support for the
bridge concept and the study to move forward with it.
MR. DON LOWELL, Alaska Transportation Consultants, urged the
committee to move ahead on funding an environmental update on the
Knik Arm crossing because it would be one of the finest
transportation projects of the century. He noted that he
previously served on the Mat-Su Borough Port Commission and
worked with Glen Glenser in the 1990s on a regional port
committee. At that time, they urged the state to move ahead to
support the Knik Arm EIS. He told committee members that three
crossings were considered in the early 1980s: the downtown
crossing, the Elmendorf crossing and the bluff crossing. The
bluff crossing was the shortest and most economical route, but it
was dismissed because it encroached three-tenths of a mile on the
Air Force antenna array that requires a one-mile clear zone. He
said that encroachment needs to be investigated again to see if
some alternative can be found to allow consideration of that
crossing. Also, earlier reports found that a railroad would not
be feasible until 2025, but that analysis needs to be reviewed,
since a railroad serving the Pt. Mackenzie area would
dramatically improve the port export capabilities and Interior
mining interests.
MR. KEAN said that after conferring with some top engineering
specialists, he believes the EIS should cost $5 million, not $20
million that is proposed. He said that much of the previous study
could be updated and new data investigated. He had three
proposals:
· Add this project to the State Transportation Improvement
Program as a priority project.
· Request the $5 million or more needed to conduct the EIS for
the Knik Arm crossing.
· Authorize the state match for this project.
· Add the project to the AMATS and the Mat-Su Borough's
project requests.
He offered to help with anything the committee needed.
CHAIRMAN COWDERY said he was told that the previous EIS was
completed for a Fire Island causeway, which cost $3.5 million.
MR. JAMES ARMSTRONG, Manager of Transportation Planning,
Municipality of Anchorage, said he is speaking on behalf of Mayor
Wuertz who worked closely with Congressman Young and the
delegation to identify major transportation projects that would
stimulate the economy. He stated:
With the shortage of developable land and a growing
population, the mayor strongly endorses the
construction of the bridge over Knik Arm to the Mat-Su
Borough. This transportation solution would allow
Anchorage to manage its growth while protecting its
existing green belts and open spaces.
He continued:
A Knik Arm crossing is too expensive to be financed
with regular transportation dollars that come to the
state each year. It will require a special
appropriation. The feasibility study done in 1983 is
obsolete. The Native Hospital blocking access to Seward
and Glen Highways and the location of a military tank
farm at the backside of the corridor are obstacles that
no longer exist. Another impediment identified in 1983
that still exists is the problem with any alternative
for accessing a bridge over military based property.
The Mayor recognizes all of these options are not
viable and, therefore, moot. The removal of the tanks
at the port gives us better options of accessing the
bridge via a road that could be built at the bottom of
the ridge below government hill. Details of how this
would be accomplished are yet to be analyzed, but there
are lots of alternatives.
This project could be a high priority project when
Congress reauthorizes TEA-21 in 2003. The Mayor
believes this project needs to receive special
consideration to be accelerated and not subject to the
routine of a long AMATS review process. This would
require a special appropriation by the legislature to
update the 1983 feasibility study. Once the results of
that study are completed, and provided they verify the
feasibility, the congressional delegation can assist us
in obtaining additional congressional approval.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the concept of removing the tanks
was a result of a study.
MR. ARMSTRONG said they are revamping the port area. They
already did the removal and have an existing green belt above
where they removed the tanks and were reseeding it.
CHAIRMAN COWDERY asked if there was any pollution in the area of
the tanks.
MR. ARMSTRONG replied that one tank had leaked that he knows of
and a lot of soil had been removed.
MR. DILLON (Alaska Trucking Association) added that he understood
there was potential for pollution problems from the creeks, which
might pose difficulties in using that area as a park, but not
using it as a road or road foundation.
MR. ARMSTRONG said the Mayor asked for a special appropriation in
the municipalities' request of about $50,000 - $100,000 to update
the 1983 study this year.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he grew up in the Puget Sound area,
where bridges were always preceded by ferry service. The ferries
handled the traffic until the volume got to the point where it
made sense to build a causeway or a floating bridge. In the late
'80s, the Anchorage Assembly did a study on the feasibility of a
high-speed ferry. He asked Mr. Armstrong if he had seen it.
MR. ARMSTRONG replied that he had seen a lot of studies, but he
hadn't seen that one.
CHAIRMAN COWDERY asked Representative Dyson if the high-speed
ferries would be seasonal or year round.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied that the study was for year-round
ferries. The study showed it would take a very capable hovercraft
to be able to get over the grounded ice blocks on the beaches.
They also looked at extending it down to Kenai, but it wasn't
economic at the time.
MR. ARMSTRONG stated that committee members have a memo that
describes the AMATS process; "We're walking the Port of Anchorage
through the LRTP amendment process right now with public review
comments."
CHAIRMAN COWDERY asked if anyone else wanted to testify. There
was no further response. He announced the committee would
continue with a round table discussion and asked for comments
about seismic problems that might be encountered, as in 1964.
MR. NOTTINGHAM said he has been in Alaska for 40 years and worked
in the bridge section of the Highway Department in Juneau.
During his time there, the bridge codes did not address design in
seismic areas. When the TransAlaska Pipeline came along, its
construction furthered seismic design 25 years ahead of other
states and the rest of the world. Most people still don't
understand how sophisticated the design of the TAPS is, or the
contribution of that project to modern engineering. The Yukon
bridge that he showed earlier was the most sophisticated design
done at that time and it is still state-of-the-art. The forces
that bridge was designed for are slightly smaller than those in
Knik Arm. He explained:
Certainly, the seismic zone is well understood and it's
not an insurmountable problem. As a matter of fact,
it's just a matter of making the bridge strong enough
and of a material that's a littler lighter weight and
suitable for seismic zones. We have good foundations;
there should be no reason it couldn't be done.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if it is is true that boring into
solid rock through the blue clay layer could increase the
amplitude of a shockwave because of loose soil.
MR. NOTTINGHAM said that is right; an earthquake on loose soil
would be much worse than one on bedrock.
MR. DILLON said he doesn't know anything about the engineering of
this project, but he knows a little about the money. The money
comes from the Highway Trust Fund collected from taxes paid by
highway users. It is not the same money used for our nation's
enhanced security. The trust fund money is available and
appropriated in Congress. He noted, "You have to have a pretty
good argument to get Congress to appropriate $1 billion for a
project."
MR. DILLON felt there is wide support for this project for
Alaska. He understands that there is about $1.2 billion for the
Transportation Infrastructure Committee (Congressman Young,
Chair). He said:
I'm sure we could build this Knik Arm crossing and use
another $1.2 billion without any problem at all, but
that's not how the system works. We're very unlikely to
go out and piecemeal together $1.2 billion of
additional projects and get those funded. We are,
however, very likely in my opinion, going to be able to
get the money appropriated to do, whether it's $1.2 or
$1.5, this particular project.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if that fund is a matching fund.
MR. DILLON said he is sure there are matching components and
earmarked components that wouldn't necessarily be matching. He
mentioned that they are also at a cusp point of rewriting
authorization of the highway bill. He explained:
The highway bill was designed in 1956 to encourage the
development of the interstate system for mobilizing in
case of war. That's why we built it. We've gone beyond
that now and there's been more flexibility both in
ISTEA (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act) and TEA-21 (Transportation Equity Act of the
Twenty-First Century), which are more recent bills to
allow for maintenance projects recognizing that the
infrastructure was built 45 years ago and has lived out
its lifespan. I would expect that we are strongly
urging the congressman and the subcommittee on highways
to allow even more discretion [indisc.] so that you can
do things that are safety upgrades, road repair work or
maintenance that is associated with this type of a
bridge.
CHAIRMAN COWDERY asked how the design addresses a collision
by a ship.
MR. NOTTINGHAM replied that they design all kinds of structures
throughout the state for 900 ft.-1,000 ft. tour ships. The
structures for the bridge would be many times stronger than ones
that resist ships in current port facilities. He stated, "These
could be fendered and handle any kind of ship impact. That would
not be a problem."
CHAIRMAN COWDERY asked about the water depth.
MR. NOTTINGHAM replied that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), one of the most valuable federal agencies
as far as data gathering, have ship captains and measurement
methods for our coastal waters and provide telemetry and depth of
water data, which would get updated. Meanwhile, NOAA has produced
charts that show the maximum depth to be about 180 ft. at low
water with 35 ft. tides. This could result in depths on high tide
over 200 ft. But the alignment of the bridge would not cross at
the deepest part of the channel, probably being in 100 ft.-120
ft. of water.
CHAIRMAN COWDERY asked what the average depth is of the platforms
in Cook Inlet.
MR. NOTTINGHAM replied that he didn't know. [An unidentified
speaker said it was 60 ft.]
MR. GLENSER said they just did a study for the oil companies on
the platforms. They were designed to last 20 years, which is now
up. They were designed to withstand seismic activity and,
consequently, they have experienced very few problems as far as
ice is concerned.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said from his involvement in several marine
science projects in Cook Inlet, he thinks the strength and impact
from the sea ice would far exceed what they would get from a tour
ship. The platforms in Cook Inlet have survived very well as that
kind of technology is well advanced. He said that Mr. Nottingham
has an immense reputation in this area in our state. He said part
of the study would have to deal with the silt coming from the
rivers into Knik Arm and he assumed that a properly designed
causeway could work for them by diminishing the amount of
dredging that has to be done in port.
He also mentioned that there are a significant number of belugas
that travel up Knik Arm that the Eklutnas have been hunting for a
long time. He assumed the open spans on the causeway would not
negatively impact the beluga migrations, but that it should be
watched.
MR. GLENSER responded that Doug Jones had just completed a
computerized tide study, which shows exactly what does happen. A
bridge structure has minimal affect on changing currents or
sediments because very little space is taken up by supports
relative to the Inlet. Other types of structures would have a
significant effect and that would have to be part of the study.
MR. CHRISTOPHERSON added that the piers would have a very minimal
impact on the belugas that would just swim around them. With
regards to sedimentation, there would be minimal impact. He
stated:
But when you do something in the Inlet, there is often
a cause and effect and it would be something that we
look at as part of the navigation and flow and drainage
plan for the Upper Cook Inlet. I think that's a very
important document and it needs to go forward.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said that a clever design might
significantly reduce the sedimentation off the face of the dock,
reduce the MOA's expenses, help sell the project and make the
economics work.
CHAIRMAN COWDERY said that he wanted to talk about access to the
bridge.
MR. DILLON said he has been involved in two studies in the Ship
Creek port access area. They are looking for a way to alleviate
traffic conflicts at rail crossings and making Ship Creek more
accessible to pedestrians who might want to use it
recreationally. One idea was that the Ingra-Gambell area would be
extended in a causeway across and a tunnel through government
hill.
TAPE 01-24, SIDE A
MR. DILLON said that the plan became too convoluted, expensive
and probably dangerous. He said they just have to look at all the
possibilities and see if they make sense.
CHAIRMAN COWDERY said there has been talk about going through
Elmendorf but he was told that would pose security problems,
although the Glen Highway goes through Fort Richardson without a
security issue.
MR. DILLON said he didn't know enough about the idea of a tunnel
from an engineering standpoint to say whether it is feasible or
not. From a transportation aspect, a problem would be that,
generally speaking, you cannot move hazardous materials through a
tunnel. Most of a railroad's business involves handling hazardous
materials. So a tunnel, unless it was an exclusive rail tunnel,
probably wouldn't work. The trucking industry moves a lot of
hazardous materials to the North Slope. A lot of times it's not
exotic things like plastic explosives; it may be things that are
labeled flammable heading for the Wal-Mart store in Wasilla.
MR. CHRISTOPHERSON added that access on the Mat-Su side, a rail
link or primary road system could have feeder links.
MR. MARK VAN DONGEN, port director of Port Mackenzie, said the
primary spot for the bridge or tunnel to end on the Pt. Mackenzie
side is at the end of the old Pt. Mackenzie Road, which is 1.2
miles up Inlet from where the current dock is at Port Mackenzie.
This is consistent with what Dennis Nottingham said earlier about
ship traffic, therefore, being on the down Inlet side from the
bridge.
MR. DONGEN said that road is there right now and they are putting
electricity 10.5 miles down the Pt. Mackenzie Road this winter.
They are looking at bringing natural gas down after that and
paving it. The road can also be upgraded and it's fairly wide.
He thought it was the ideal location for the crossing to
terminate. He said that the near-term solution for transportation
into the Mat-Su Valley would be the Pt. Mackenzie Road, which
connects to the Knik Goose Bay Road, which then goes up into
Wasilla. A mid-term solution would be to upgrade the Burma Road,
go past Big Lake, and connect with the Parks Highway. A long-term
solution would be to build an entirely new road from the port
area further towards the Susitna River going up towards Willow.
He said that these are all in the long-range plans of the Borough
for upgrading the roads to interconnect to the crossing.
CHAIRMAN COWDERY asked if he knew about funding for a railroad
extension to Port Mackenzie.
MR. DONGEN replied:
That spur is approximately 33 miles long. It's a $60
million project. We have some funds right now -
$410,000 to do an update on a prior study on the exact
route that that spur would go and we also have about $1
million available through the Federal Transit
Administration to do the environmental study or
whatever will be required for that spur to go in. But
it will entail about $48 million in federal funding and
another $12 million in state matching funds to actually
construct that spur.
11:40 a.m.
MR. DAN JACOBSEN, Mat-Su Borough resident, said he understood
that rail spur was eight to 10 years away.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he wanted to know if it is a good idea
to look at a plan for developing the Port Mackenzie area along
with the crossing or whether it would diffuse the issue.
CHAIRMAN COWDERY said that it's obvious they should get the
traffic away from downtown.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said about two years ago the federal
government commissioned a study called A Critical Infrastructure
Analysis. The events of September 11 have added a significant
priority to that study. He pointed out, "Security of our
infrastructure means having alternative routes. And that
certainly is true here. We're very vulnerable with our fuel and
electric supply. Almost none of those are loops."
MR. DILLON said he talked to Mayor Wuertz about transportation
issues and his specific interest was what has been done to
accommodate security issues in the MOA comprehensive plan. This
was generated by a study done last year that found a potential
problem if a wildfire occurred near the Hillside because of no
access for fire fighting equipment and no egress for the
residents.
CHAIRMAN COWDERY said he wanted to discuss what permits would be
required, how much they would cost and what their time frame is.
MR. CHRISTOPHERSON responded that it would depend on the type of
permitting process. An environmental assessment or environmental
impact statement could take two to three years for the normal
agencies - marine, parks and different land development groups,
led by the Corps.
CHAIRMAN COWDERY asked how much it would cost.
MR. CHRISTOPHERSON replied that would depend on whether it was
done privately or publicly, or with an accelerated process. He
thought it would cost $3 million - $5 million, depending on the
scope. If it was expanded to look at access on either side, that
could take more time.
CHAIRMAN COWDERY asked what a realistic timeframe would be for
construction of this project, whether work could be done year-
round and what would be needed to conform to this type of
schedule.
MR. NOTTINGHAM replied that pier construction in Cook Inlet in
the winter might be difficult. A lot of the substructure work
would have to be scheduled for the summer, which could be as long
as eight months. The rest of the work on each side could go year-
round. It would probably take two years to construct, maybe three
at the outside. If the permitting were to occur concurrent with
construction, it could take five to six years.
11:50 a.m.
CHAIRMAN COWDERY asked what role DOTPF would play and whether
they have the qualified personnel onboard for this type of
project. He asked what percentage of the cost of this project
should go to DOTPF for their oversight or whatever their
involvement would be.
MR. CHRISTOPHERSON replied that DOTPF plays a role in managing
infrastructure projects in the state and it could play that role
here. Private consultants could assist in improving its
capabilities. He explained that DOTPF took a lead role in the
permitting and upfront planning process for the Whittier Tunnel
and that took the top ASC award in the United States. He said a
lot of private firms have prepared for years doing geotechnical
studies, seismic analysis, etc. in bridge design and they are
capable of working with DOTPF.
CHAIRMAN COWDERY asked if he thought there are Alaskan
contractors capable of working on this type of project.
MR. CHRISTOPHERSON replied that he feels very strongly about
Alaskan contractors since he had worked with them for many years:
I've worked all over the world. There are many Alaskan
contractors that could do many parts of this project,
whether it be working off of barges, putting in driven
pile foundations, whether it be hauling gravel for the
abutments or building railroad tracks. Many contractors
have demonstrated that in projects in the Inlet; they
are demonstrating it in projects on the North Slope. We
don't get a lot of visibility developing these new oil
fields on the North Slope, but there are many
contractors building billion dollar off-shore islands,
building pipelines in the Arctic Ocean, sub-sea
pipelines, building bridges in frigid, very limited
work periods on the North Slope.
CHAIRMAN COWDERY asked how we should plan to alleviate terrorist
activities on this crossing.
MR. NOTTINGHAM replied that these kinds of structures are
relatively enormous compared to the small framing of the towers
that collapsed in New York. The terrorists knew that by hitting
the light steel at the top of the tower and with a little extra
heat, they could collapse the top floors and that would pancake
the rest. "That was the failing of those designs of those towers
- the small little members at the top."
MR. NOTTINGHAM said the bridges are much larger and it's
extremely difficult to damage them. On the Yukon bridge, the
girders are 13.5 ft. deep. He said, "These would be 15 ft. deep
girders of steel and if you design a redundant system, you can
blow one whole span apart and it won't collapse the bridge." He
said terrorism was a consideration in the design of the TAPS.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said the major security issue is going to be
alleviating the security concerns at Elmendorf Air Force Base. He
felt, "It won't be done locally, dealing with local based
commanders here. You won't get that problem solved. It will have
to be done at a higher level."
MR. CHRISTOPHERSON said there are some important infrastructure
issues that need to be looked at in Alaska, like the TAPS, the
airports and the ports. He thought the crossing would provide
redundancy in both utilities and transportation.
CHAIRMAN COWDERY agreed that our ports are very critical.
MR. DILLON informed them that Governor Sheffield, in fact, left
for a meeting on port readiness today to look at further ways to
tighten security. He said:
Going back to timelines for projects, he said a simple
road project done with federal money now in the
neighborhood of several hundred million dollars,
typically after you're agreed that it's a good project
to do and the preliminary work is done, it's about
seven years before you can drive on it, if everything
goes very well. It's not unusual for that project to
take 12 years.
The process is a problem. Right now Congressman Young
is well aware of this and the rewrite and
reauthorization of the highway bills that are upcoming
- one of his goals is to streamline that process where
it's possible without denigrating the environmental
integrity or the quality of the work that's done, in
other words, not doing shoddy engineering or
considering the environmental issues. But to streamline
the process in the sense that it shouldn't take 12
years from the time you've agreed to do it, the funding
is available to actually start that type of
construction that you guys are envisioning in going to
work.
The tension is not the highway build-up, it is the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA's
regulations constrain what could be done in highway
building as much as the highway building law itself.
There is work underway in Washington, D.C. to address
those issues and I would like to ask consideration be
given to the Senate Transportation Committee at our
State Legislature to look at that and if they believe
there is a real reason to get involved, to get involved
and try to shorten the timeline on these projects so
that we could go to a construction phase maybe 25 - 30
percent quicker than we do now.
CHAIRMAN COWDERY commented that he and others were disappointed
in the energy bill moving out of Senator Murkowski's committee.
He didn't know if it was completely understood back in Washington
that you can't turn oil on like you turn on a spigot. "You can't
build this bridge without lead time."
MR. LARRY WHITING said that he had a concept from Iceland that
answers all their questions about EIS matters.
CHAIRMAN COWDERY thanked him and asked him to give it to the
committee.
MR. CARL ANDERSON said he owned a tugboat in the Port of
Anchorage and thought that the bridge was far enough up the shore
that a ship would probably run aground before it got to it.
CHAIRMAN COWDERY said that he was planning to have another
hearing involving all the ports, the airports, the trucking
industry and shipping. He thanked everyone for participating and
adjourned the meeting at 12:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|