Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/23/2000 01:39 PM Senate TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
March 23, 2000
1:39 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Jerry Ward, Chairman
Senator Drue Pearce, Vice Chair
Senator Mike Miller
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Rick Halford
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Presentation by DOTPF Staff on Juneau Access
SENATE BILL NO. 288
"An Act authorizing the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities to enter into an agreement with the Inter-Island Ferry
Authority regarding the operation of the Clarke Bay Terminal,
Prince of Wales Island."
MOVED SB 288 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS SENATE ACTION
SB 288 - No previous Senate action.
WITNESS REGISTER
Mr. Pat Kemp
Preconstruction Engineer
Southeast Region
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
6860 Glacier Highway
Juneau, AK 99801-7999
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave Presentation on Juneau Access
Jack Beedle
Design Group Chief
Southeast Region
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
6860 Glacier Highway
Juneau, AK 99801-7999
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave Presentation on Juneau Access
Captain Robert J. Doll
General Manager of Ferry Operations
Southeast Region
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, AK 99801-7898
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered Questions about Fast Ferries
Murray Walsh
Transportation Committee
Juneau Chamber of Commerce
8800 Glacier Hwy, Suite 112
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports Fast Ferry Service if Plans to Build
the East Lynn Canal Highway are Pursued
Andy Williams
No address provided
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports Fast Ferries if Highway Plans Continue
David Gray
Legislative Aide to Senator Mackie
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified for sponsor of SB 288
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-03, SIDE A
CHAIRMAN WARD called the Senate Transportation Committee meeting to
order at 1:39 p.m. Present were Senators Lincoln, Miller, and
Chairman Ward. The committee first heard a presentation by
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities' (DOTPF) staff
on Juneau Access.
MR. PAT KEMP, Preconstruction Engineer for DOTPF, accompanied by
Mr. Jack Beedle, Design Group Chief, gave the following
presentation.
The Juneau Access project began in 1993. In 1994 an
engineering reconnaissance report was published and work began
on a draft environmental impact statement. In 1997, the EIS
was released to the public and a series of hearings were held
throughout the state. After gathering public comments, in
order to move forward and complete the EIS work, it was
necessary to declare one of the alternatives presented in the
draft document as a preferred alternative. To do so,
Commissioner Perkins asked that we take the pertinent
information contained within this, the draft EIS, and put
together a presentation for Governor Knowles.
After viewing the presentation, Governor Knowles accepted the
Department's recommendation that a highway along the East side
of Lynn Canal is the state's preferred alternative for
improving access to Juneau. What I'm going to present to you
today is the Power Point presentation prepared for Governor
Knowles.
[Mr. Kemp's power point presentation was modeled on a document
entitled, "Juneau Access - DOT&PF Preferred Alternative Report.]
MR. KEMP discussed the history of surface transportation to Juneau,
beginning with the Alaska Steamship Company in 1890. The Southeast
transportation plan published by DOTPF in 1986 established the East
Lynn Canal Highway as the long term solution for improving access
to Juneau. In 1992, the Legislature authorized funding and
reconnaissance work began in 1994. In 1997, the draft EIS was
released for public review.
The purpose and need of the Juneau Access project and the draft
document consist of five issues: the capacity to meet
transportation demand in the corridor; flexibility and improved
opportunity for travel; reduced travel time; reduced state cost;
and reduced user costs for transportation.
To examine the problem in Lynn Canal, DOTPF looked at the
comparison of existing service growth, community growth, and
adjacent corridor growth and the differences between the three. It
compared that to the Lynn Canal traffic forecast peak travel demand
in 2025.
In summary, ferry service in Lynn Canal did not grow, community
populations grew at about 23 percent and the traffic volumes on
adjacent corridors grew at about 27 percent.
Within the draft EIS, DOTPF performed a detailed traffic study
which included all types of travel. Peak travel occurs during July
and is low during the winter months. In 2025, the projected demand
is expected to be 2,123 vehicles.
DOTPF studied several alternatives. DOTPF added a ten percent
contingency to the cost of each alternative and $5 million for the
preliminary engineering cost. The first alternative was a "no
build" alternative which consists of existing service. The capital
cost to keep the existing ferries fit is about $96 million. The
annual operating cost of the existing service is $8.4 million and
revenues generated from fares equal $6.5 million for a net
operating cost of about $1.9 million.
The second alternative is the East Lynn Canal Highway which would
extend Juneau's Glacier Highway to Skagway. Daily shuttle ferry
service would be available from the Katzehin River flats. The July
capacity of this facility is greater than the projected traffic of
2100 vehicles. The travel time between Auke Bay and Skagway would
be two hours.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked the number of road miles between Juneau and
Skagway.
MR. KEMP replied from the Auke Bay ferry terminal Skagway is 92
miles. He said the capital cost of the roadway would be $232
million, and annual maintenance and operations would cost about
$4.3 million. This alternative contains an average toll of $25 per
vehicle - the shuttle ferry would charge nothing. The second road
alternative includes the same capital cost. No toll would be
charged but the ferry shuttle would charge. The annual net
operating cost would be $2.1 million.
The marine alternatives consist of four options. Three of those
options would use existing service and add fast ferry service
between different points. The fourth would use only fast ferry
service.
Commissioner Perkins asked DOTPF staff to look at several other
proposals. The first proposal bypasses Berners Bay with a shuttle
ferry system. A road would be constructed from Berners Bay to
Skagway with shuttle service at Katzehin. The second proposal is
to terminate the roadway at Katzehin Flats and institute shuttle
service between Katzehin, Haines, and Skagway. A third proposal
would extend the highway to Berners Bay, utilize the Malaspina to
the Katzehin Flats, construct a highway to Skagway and use ferry
shuttle service from Katzehin Flats to Haines. The last proposal
would extend the highway to Katzehin Flats and institute a
triangular shuttle ferry service.
Finally, DOTPF did an update to the marine alternatives studied in
the draft document to determine whether there are more alternatives
than those considered in the draft. The Juneau Access document
contains a user benefit analysis. For this particular study, DOTPF
used life cycle costing. The Glosten report corroborated the
information DOTPF found for option 4D which extends the highway to
Berners Bay and uses two high speed ferries.
An independent rating team reviewed the alternatives. The
individuals were not familiar with the project. The team was made
up of two federal highway professionals and three Alaska DOTPF
professionals from the central region and the DOTPF Statewide Chief
of Planning. They reviewed the hard data and made an analysis.
The team rated each project on several criteria. The East Lynn
Canal highway rated highest in providing the capacity to meeting
transportation demand in July of 2025. Again, the team assigned
the East Lynn Canal Highway the highest value of 10 when it
compared the alternatives for flexibility and ability to improve
opportunities for travel.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if Proposals 5A and 5D scored 9 because of
the large increase in the number of round trips.
MR. KEMP said the scoring team assigned a value of four to
Alternatives 4A through 4D because those alternatives required four
round trips each day. Proposals 5B and 5C received scores of 8 and
2 respectively because of the number of round trips of each.
Proposals 5A and 5D received scores of 9 because the team knew
those proposals were not as good as a ten but they were better than
the other alternatives.
The third purpose and need is to reduce travel times between the
communities. The team then evaluated the greatest savings in time
for each alternative. The East Lynn Canal highway offered the
greatest savings of 7.1 hours off of the existing time and it
received a high score of 10.
The team rated each project based on the state's cost to provide
transportation in the corridor. The annual operating costs and the
annual refurbishing cost, which equals the capital cost put into
vessels on an annual basis, were calculated. They added the
operating and refurbishing costs together to calculate the net cost
each year of each alternative. Again, the East Lynn Canal highway
had the lowest annual cost and received the highest score of 10.
The second part of the fourth purpose and need was to look at the
capital costs. The "no build" alternative costs the least so it
received a score of 10. The other alternatives were scored on a
linear basis.
The team last looked at reduced user costs for transportation in
the corridor. The cost was determined for one-way travel for a
family of four with a vehicle under 19 feet from Auke Bay to
Skagway. The user cost for the existing service equals $191. The
East Lynn Canal highway alternative was the least expensive with a
cost of $20. The proposed toll was not included in that rating.
The five criteria were scored for each alternative to come up with
an overall rating. The criteria was not weighted. Alternative 2,
the East Lynn Canal highway, received the highest score.
Alternative 4D received the second highest score.
In summary, the East Lynn Canal highway was the only alternative
that meets the traffic demand, offers the greatest flexibility and
opportunity for travel, gives the greatest reduction in travel
time, has the lowest operating cost and has the lowest user cost
for the traveler therefore it was recommended as the preferred
alternative.
The second part of DOTPF's study included a review of the
following: the Berners Bay Crossing; the sea lion haulout South of
Haines; avalanche hazards; recreational opportunities; economic
impacts; and public comments.
DOTPF worked with the resource agencies to study three separate
alignments through Berners Bay. The roadway embankment has been
minimized as much as possible. Bridges would be built over the
rivers. An estimated 57 acres of wetlands would be filled.
Significant opposition from environmental groups has been voiced a
about this crossing.
DOTPF worked with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and
agreed to restrict the view from and to the sea lion haulout.
Human access would be restricted as well, and the construction in
that area would occur while sea lions are not there. DOTPF went
through a Section 7 analysis of the Endangered Species Act with
NMFS and concluded that the highway would be unlikely to adversely
impact the sea lion haulout.
The second substantive issue is the avalanche hazard. 58 paths
have been identified along the highway alignment; 54 of the paths
are less severe than Snowslide Gulch on Thane Road. A mitigation
plan for each site was not developed for the draft document. The
annual maintenance estimate includes about $350,000 for a detailed
avalanche program.
An avalanche hazard index (AHI) is an empirical formula that is
used to rate the severity of avalanches. Of the 58 avalanches, 32
are rated very low, 20 are rated low, three are rated moderate, and
three are rated high. In comparison, there are 150 avalanche paths
on the Seward Highway: about 2 paths every mile. The AHI for the
Lynn Canal highway is 369, for the Seward Highway it is 1,215.
That is an unmitigated value where nothing is done to mitigate the
impacts.
The recreational opportunities along the East Lynn Canal highway
include bicycling, hiking, climbing, kayaking, sport fishing,
hunting, camping, picnicking, and wildlife viewing. The roadway is
30 feet wide.
Number 2046
SENATOR LINCOLN asked how far the scenic overlook is from the sea
lion haulout.
MR. KEMP was unsure but pointed out the only comment that DOTPF
received from NMFS about recreational opportunities being close to
the sea lion haulout was that motorized boats could not be within
10 miles of that site. The recreational sites will be developed
jointly with the U.S. Forest Service and the Alaska Department of
Natural Resources.
The highway construction will provide 200 jobs each year. Labor
expenditures are estimated to be $100 million. Regarding local
economy leakage, DOTPF found that Haines' residents would spend an
additional $0.5 million in Juneau, Skagway residents would spend an
additional $0.8 million in Juneau, but Juneau residents would spend
$0.8 million in Haines and $1.0 million in Skagway.
MR. KEMP discussed the five major concerns expressed by community
participants in a telephone survey: cost to build; environmental
impacts; increased traffic; social impacts; and maintenance.
MR. KEMP said they received a lot of comments saying don't build
the highway but those respondents did not say what to do. DOTPF
supposed those people did want improvements and were for the marine
alternative.
MR. KEMP said the breakdown by community statistics shows that the
marine alternatives were favored by Haines and Skagway respondents
while the highway was favored in Juneau. Respondents from "other
Alaska" favored the marine highway. DOTPF received quite a few
postcards and mailings from large environmental groups outside of
Alaska in favor of the marine highway alternatives.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if the 1700 comments opposed to the highway
or for the marine highway were broken down into more detail.
MR. KEMP said that is work that will be performed for the final
EIS.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if he has any idea what that breakdown will
be.
MR. KEMP said he does not.
CHAIRMAN WARD asked if DOTPF received only 219 comments from "other
Alaska."
SENATOR PHILLIPS noted the total for "other Alaska" is about 770.
He asked if DOTPF sent out postcards for comments.
MR. KEMP said DOTPF has had quite an extensive public involvement
process.
CHAIRMAN WARD asked if DOTPF sent out postcards requesting
comments.
MR. JACK BEEDLE, Design Group Chief for the Southeast Region of
DOTPF, clarified that postcards were sent by another group that
copied a letter from DOTPF. It appeared to be from DOTPF but was
not. He noted DOTPF took oral testimony at public hearings and
accepted written testimony that was mailed to DOTPF.
CHAIRMAN WARD asked who sent the postcards.
MR. BEEDLE replied it was sent by a group that supported the
highway.
MR. KEMP noted DOTPF proposed a work schedule for this project in
1998 as it expected to have a record of decision for the draft
document in 2000. Work would begin in 2002 with a segment of
highway from the end of Glacier Highway to Independence Lake
completed and a temporary ferry facility would be built in the
Berners Bay area for the Malaspina. During the second year of
construction, the Malaspina could begin day boat operations from
Berners Bay and another increment of highway could be constructed.
During the third construction year, the Katzehin ferry terminal
would begin as well as construction of the highway into Skagway.
Malaspina service would begin during the fourth year while the
remainder of the highway is constructed. During the fifth year,
shuttle ferry service could begin between the three points.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked if construction would occur year round.
MR. KEMP replied construction would occur year round.
SENATOR MILLER noted that the presentation seemed to favor the
road. He asked why the fast ferry has become the choice
alternative.
TAPE 00-03, SIDE B
MR. MURRAY WALSH, a member of a group formerly known as Alaskans
for Better Access and presently a member of the transportation
committee of the Juneau Chamber of Commerce, informed committee
members that the draft environmental impact statement, upon which
DOTPF's presentation was based, was issued in mid-1997. An
elaborate public comment period ensued afterwards. After that,
DOTPF worked on the subject but did not publish any more documents.
This presentation was prepared about one year ago to present to
state officials so that a preferred alternative could be chosen.
To his understanding, that presentation was made about 11 months
ago. Then nothing happened until January of 2000 when the Governor
announced the transportation initiative which included the fast
ferry. Many people were nonplussed by that. The fast ferry idea
did not emerge from the environmental process - that process is
stalled at this point.
DOTPF's presentation was given at a Juneau Chamber of Commerce
(JCC) special meeting arranged by the transportation committee. At
that meeting, a document version of the slide show and a letter to
the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) from DOTPF was passed out.
That letter specifies that the Juneau Access preferred alternative
is the East Lynn Canal Highway but then says, "... however, we've
determined that there are other critical funding needs in the state
and we can't afford the preferred alternative at this time,
therefore we are suspending further work on the EIS." The JCC
transportation committee members were told to expect a letter from
FHA in response. Mr. Walsh received a copy of that letter today.
The FHA says the state has two choices: to complete the EIS which
will probably cost in the neighborhood of $2 million; or to
withdraw from the project altogether. The letter does not say what
the consequences of withdrawal might be. He called the local FHA
and asked whether the state will have to pay back the $5.3 million
spent so far. The FHA official would not say, but said the
withdrawal decision should be based on other reasons.
Number 2238
CHAIRMAN WARD asked the name of the FHA official.
MR. WALSH said Steve Marino (ph).
MR. WALSH said he asked Mr. Marino if it is possible the $5.3
million will have to be repaid and Mr. Marino said it is, but it is
more likely that it won't be. Mr. Walsh said what has frustrated
many people is that the fast ferry idea came as a "bolt from the
blue." A number of the alternatives examined in the slide show
were also never before available to the public. The group of
alternatives examined in the draft EIS were in the slide show but
another bunch were examined that were not - they emerged after the
public comment period.
MR. WALSH noted the FHA also said that DOTPF declared a preferred
alternative but it has no legal status for action. The process
must be finished for the preferred alternative, or any other
alternative, to have any significance. He does not know what the
State will do, but the State has indicated that it does not want to
work on the EIS anymore. He pleaded with committee members to do
something to encourage the State to finish the EIS process. If it
is not, the fast ferry is all we will ever get. It has been
described as an interim solution but there is no other process
underway to come to a more permanent and more successful solution.
The fast ferry provides the least improvement of service of any of
the alternatives. People are being urged to support the fast ferry
and many people would like to if they thought something else will
happen. He firmly believes that if the State just "chops off the
process" that is all we will ever have.
SENATOR LINCOLN stated she has not read the entire letter from the
FHA, but she noted on page 2 it reads, "... the analysis could
define the ferry portion as a temporary measure intended to satisfy
a limited portion of the need until funding for the entire
alternative becomes available." She thought it sounds like the
federal government is acknowledging that there is still a
considerable amount of money yet to be expended and that they are
willing to set that aside to go with a fast ferry or the other
alternative until resources come available. In other words, the
FHA would simply suspend it.
MR. WALSH said he interprets the FHA as saying if the State decides
it wants to have a fast ferry on an interim basis, the State can
spend federal money to do that. He thought the FHA is trying to be
accommodating. He noted, with regard to money, the State will
receive federal highway receipts of $400 million per year, double
what has been the case earlier in the decade. He feels that
arguing that there is not enough money for an expensive solution
ignores the huge amount of federal funds that are flowing Alaska's
way.
SENATOR LINCOLN remarked, "It seems, now, in looking at option 2,
it says, this option prevents you from preserving an East Lynn
Canal alignment as the preferred alternative so that if you go with
that, you're simply saying that it would be a fast ferry and that's
the end of it."
MR. WALSH said that is what it amounts to.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked Mr. Walsh to describe his affiliation.
MR. WALSH stated he is a member of the Juneau Chamber of Commerce's
recently formed transportation committee.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked Mr. Murray, given the information he has
before him today, what direction the JCC intends to take.
MR. WALSH replied the JCC has not picked a direction yet, but his
inclination is to recommend that the JCC transportation committee
support the fast ferry if the State continues with the
environmental impact process. To support the fast ferry
alternative with no hope of anything better would be tough to
swallow.
SENATOR ELTON asked how much it will cost to complete the EIS and
for Mr. Murray to explain the process of how federal highway funds
will be allocated for projects around the State.
MR. KEMP said that to turn the draft EIS into a final document and
get the permits will cost about $2 million and take about 25
months.
CHAIRMAN WARD asked if the $2 million is in addition to the $5
million that has already been spent and whether the $5 million may
have to be paid back if the State stops the process now.
MR. KEMP said he is not sure whether the $5 million will have to be
repaid.
CAPTAIN BOB DOLL, General Manager of Ferry Operations, DOTPF, said
that a great deal more money will be flowing from the federal
government than has in the past but, at the same time, the demands
for that money has increased. The process for submitting projects
and getting communities to pass resolutions in support is far more
refined that it has been in the past. One thing that has happened
in the past year is that this project has been competing with every
other project in the State in the STIP development process. The
Southeast transportation plan will demand about $430 million and if
$230 million is spent to complete the EIS, that will be a
significant portion of the money that will flow to the State over
the next 10 years. Therefore, the project has been competing. The
Governor and Commissioner Perkins said, when they announced their
decision, that in their estimation, this project does not compete
well enough with all of the other demands in the State so they
decided not to proceed with it. The fast ferry is an effort to
provide an interim improvement in access to and from Juneau. That
is not an alternative that the EIS discussed, it merely takes
advantage of a design that DOTPF is developing for other purposes.
SENATOR MILLER thought the U.S. Department of Transportation was
clear in its letter that Alaska must complete it or totally
withdraw from the project. It appears that the Administration has
decided to withdraw from the project. He asked whether the State
will have to start from scratch again once it withdraws.
CAPTAIN DOLL said he cannot answer that question authoritatively
but he was sure that everyone in favor of the road project hopes
that the investment and effort that has gone into that project
might find more fertile ground some time in the future. He noted
the Commissioner will have to consider whether the State must repay
the federal government when he responds to the FHA.
SENATOR MILLER thought it would be much cheaper to spend the $2
million and finish the EIS and, if another Administration comes
along and likes the idea, the wheel will not have to be reinvented.
He thought spending another $2 million to have the project ready to
go, should it become an option in the future, makes sense.
CAPTAIN DOLL noted that consideration has been presented to DOTPF.
CHAIRMAN WARD asked whether DOTPF made any conclusion as to whether
to continue and complete the study.
CAPTAIN DOLL recalled from that conversation that that issue would
have to be addressed when responding to the FHA. Including having
to repay, and having to find the $2 million, the question of the
life of the EIS is a fairly technical topic. The issue is how far
the EIS must be developed before it becomes self-sustaining.
CHAIRMAN WARD asked if the response to the Juneau Access question
was three fast ferries.
CAPTAIN DOLL stated the first fast ferry was the Shakwak (ph) ferry
which was designed to serve Sitka. The estimate for that ferry is
$38.5 million. By service production, the total cost of all of the
ferries should be reduced. The bond proposal contains two
additional ferries, one of which is intended to operate North from
Ketchikan to Wrangell. The third would operate in Lynn Canal from
Juneau north. The total cost is about $100 million.
CHAIRMAN WARD asked if the $100 million would come out of the cost
of the road project.
CAPTAIN DOLL replied "we have some apples and oranges here." The
fast ferry projects, and two of those three, are intended to serve
the requirements of the Southeast transportation plan which extends
throughout the whole of Southeast Alaska. The whole fast ferry
project is intended to fulfill the essential parts of the Southeast
transportation plan. Lynn Canal is only one part.
CHAIRMAN WARD asked whether the fast ferry service will keep the
cost at zero.
CAPTAIN DOLL said they would represent additional capacity.
CHAIRMAN WARD asked if any of the ferries will be retired.
CAPTAIN DOLL said that is a central issue that DOTPF has to keep in
mind.
CHAIRMAN WARD asked if that question was addressed in the $5.5
million study and whether the fast ferry system is new and
different.
CAPTAIN DOLL said "that is correct."
CHAIRMAN WARD asked when the Commissioner and the Governor will be
able to respond to the Committee and to the public about their
intentions to complete this effort.
CAPTAIN DOLL said DOTPF only received a faxed copy of the letter
from FHA today so it will respond in the near future.
CHAIRMAN WARD asked if a response could be prepared by the weekend.
CAPTAIN DOLL said he doubted it.
SENATOR PEARCE asked what kind of training is required before one
can be the Master of a fast ferry.
CAPTAIN DOLL said DOTPF is refining the training requirements with
the Coast Guard right now. The Coast Guard has not had to deal
with a fast vehicle ferry prior to this project. It is a struggle
to translate the international high speed ferry code into specific
training requirements for Alaska. One will need a Masters license.
DOTPF will have its own, very extensive, training program if only
to operate the sophisticated gadgets that will be on board: radars,
infrared devices, and low-light level telescopes.
SENATOR PEARCE asked if anyone is available now to be certified to
skipper a ferry.
CAPTAIN DOLL said no, but there are people who, with two weeks of
training with the builder, would be qualified. The Coast Guard has
indicated that it will require root certification. It will not be
possible to climb aboard a fast ferry and take it anywhere in the
world. The definition of "root" is critical, and DOTPF believes
that root, for its purposes, will be defined as Southeast Alaska.
Someone would have to have that certification on their license.
SENATOR PEARCE asked how many ferry systems in the world use fast
ferries.
CAPTAIN DOLL replied for 15 years or more, hundreds have been
operating. They operate between the United Kingdom and Ireland,
between France and Britain, in the Baltic Sea, the Mediterranean,
in Australia and in Japan. They are only new to Alaska.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if they are used in Canada.
CAPTAIN DOLL said they are. He noted he has taken the opportunity
to travel aboard a vehicle ferry across the St. Lawrence Gulf.
That fast ferry is relatively small and is similar to the one that
will be used here.
CHAIRMAN WARD asked if protection of marine mammals will have to be
considered in the environmental impact statement.
CAPTAIN DOLL explained that all construction with federal dollars
requires some kind of environmental document. This will probably
require the lowest level of all of those and DOTPF would have to
take all of those things into consideration for design and
operations. The routes and weather predictions along the route
must be planned in a way similar to the air industry.
SENATOR MILLER asked whether the fast ferries could use existing
facilities without major modifications.
CAPTAIN DOLL replied that DOTPF will have to have a stern loading
facility at one end of every route. DOTPF anticipates that one of
the stern loading facilities would be in Juneau, one in Sitka, and
one in Ketchikan. The front loading facilities can be used
everywhere else that there is a single arrival and single departure
point.
SENATOR LINCOLN questioned why a member of the public distributed
a letter to Commissioner Perkins to committee members and why it
took the FHA one month to respond to the Commissioner about such a
critical issue.
CAPTAIN DOLL said he received his faxed copy of the response this
morning. He would not normally have made such a thing public - he
would have waited for the hard copy.
MR. SANDY WILLIAMS, a Juneau resident since 1959 and former federal
and state highway engineer, said he personally supports the fast
ferry system as long as it is a short term program that will
enhance transportation in the Northern corridor of Southeast
Alaska. However, the only long term solution is to build the road.
Anything short of that will not provide the service to the
travelling public that is necessary, and it will be a continual
drain on the resources of the State of Alaska. The road
construction is the most cost effective measure available and with
declining oil resources and revenue, he foresees that continued
ferry service in the Northern part of Southeast Alaska will
actually decrease because the money will not be available to
operate it at the same level. He was involved in the program to
build a road along the west shore of Lynn Canal and sees road
access as the preferred alternative for a very long time. In the
long term, the ferry service cannot continue to operate in the
manner it is operating now.
CHAIRMAN WARD announced that the committee will be writing a letter
to the DOTPF Commissioner and to Governor Knowles requesting an
opinion on the $5.5 million and asking whether they intend to
jeopardize that money or if they intend to fund the completion of
the EIS at a cost of $1.8 million.
SB 288-APPROVE CLARKE BAY TERMINAL AGREEMENT
DAVE GRAY, legislative aide to Senator Mackie, sponsor of SB 288,
explained that Senator Mackie introduced SB 288 at the request of
the Inner Island Ferry Authority. That Authority is comprised of
all of the communities on Prince of Wales Island and was created
to respond to a need for more stable and economic ferry service.
The Authority has received a considerable amount of funds from
Alaska's congressional delegation. Come June, the Authority will
begin operating a ship daily from Prince of Wales to Ketchikan.
The new ferry will offset the current service provided by the MV
Aurora, but it will be using the docking facility in Clarke Bay.
A provision in Title 29, under the statutes for municipal
transportation authorities, requires them to get approval from the
legislature for use of a state facility. That is why SB 288 was
introduced. He offered to answer questions.
There being no questions or further testimony, SENATOR PEARCE moved
SB 288 from committee with individual recommendations. There being
no objection, the motion carried.
CHAIRMAN WARD adjourned the meeting.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|