Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 17
04/05/2016 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB21 | |
| HB186 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 144 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 21 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 186 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 21-REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITIES
1:04:32 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 21, "An Act relating to regional transit
authorities."
1:05:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature,
explained that HB 21 is the child of a 2010 regional transit
authority (RTA) bill introduced by Senator Charlie Huggins [SB
152, 26th Legislature]. The proposed legislation allows
municipalities to create joint agreements and establishing a
joint authority, which can be entered into by more than two
municipalities. The bill language is based on existing statute
under Title 29, governing port authority and regional solid
waste management. The Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Mat-Su)
initially requested legislative action and, he predicted, the
major implications will be along the rail belt, where over half
of the state's population resides.
1:06:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON reported that the Matanuska-Susitna
Valley, with 100,000 residents, is the fastest growing area in
the state. One third of the Mat-Su residents commute to
Anchorage for work. At about 6 a.m., hundreds of vehicles can
be seen en route to Anchorage, and a commute of this magnitude
has many associated costs, which include: road maintenance,
vehicle maintenance, lost productivity, motor fuel, and worker
stress. He relayed that individual fuel costs range from $143
to $351 per month, depending on gasoline prices. The longe
range plan of the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) identifies the
need for an RTA and includes the Mat-Su within the plan. He
said that the Alaska Railroad Commission (ARRC) identified an
RTA as being the next step toward examining a commuter rail
system. Transportation problems do not stop and start at a city
or municipal boundary, he opined, but rather extends well
beyond. Thus, the goal of an RTA must be to produce a seamless
and coordinated multimodal transportation system to meet the
needs of a diverse population. A necessary topic for discussion
is how areas with multiple governmental jurisdiction can work
and plan together, he said, and offered Sutton as an example of
an area where a commuter transits several local government
jurisdictions prior to arriving entering Anchorage.
1:08:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON named the current, Anchorage based,
transit operators, which are: the People Mover, AnchorRIDES,
and Share-A-Ride. He also identified the Mat-Su operators,
which are: Mat-Su Community Transit (MASCOT), Valley Mover, and
the Chickaloon Area Transit System (CATS). In 2010, the MOA and
Mat-Su authorities contracted with RLS & Associates, Inc., to
draft an RTA plan, which was to include: primary service, long
range goals, grant administration, and financial management for
administering Federal Transit Administration funds. He said
that an RTA would allow for contracting with the existing, local
transportation providers without assuming the companies'
responsibilities in the areas of operations, maintenance,
scheduling, safety, or training.
1:09:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said that the MOA/Mat-Su 2010 plan
identified the following advantages of an RTA: new funding and
transit services; assumption of grant administration,
procurement, marketing, and other functions to supplement the
efforts of the MOA, the Public Transportation Department, the
Mat-Su borough, Valley Mover, and MASCOT staff; and operation of
new services would take advantage of the capabilities and
infrastructure of existing public transit providers.
Coordination under an RTA would result in enhancing the services
throughout the jurisdictions that People Mover, Valley Mover,
and MASCOT already serve. The disadvantages identified are the
actions that are required at both the state and local levels:
legislative passage of enabling statute; and appropriate local
government actions for the creation of RTAs. The proposed bill
establishes the statutory structure for an RTA, with language
for governance that includes: self-funding; bonding; how an RTA
would be dissolved; corporate status; state authorities; and
stipulation for membership on the board, as well as board
functions.
1:11:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said that any form of transit modality
could be taken up by an RTA, and said he envisions a commuter,
light rail system. He opined that what was happening in the
Mat-Su was in need of a sophisticated make-over, and said the
goal, under HB 21, is to create a sustainable, productive,
enjoyable, and safe system to be completed over the next 25
years. The Glenn Highway hosts frequent accidents, which are
followed by lane closures and delays. He opined that a mature
economy requires a sophisticated transportation plan, and
mentioned Seattle, San Francisco, and Denver as examples. He
noted that a commuter rail system is not flawless, for example,
unless Mat-Su commuters work in the immediate downtown Anchorage
area, they will need another mode of transportation to arrive at
their employment locale, which will require a discussion about
regional transportation development.
1:14:02 PM
CO-CHAIR FOSTER asked whether there was a companion bill for HB
21 in the Senate and whether the sponsor has sought support from
Senator Huggins.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that there is not a companion
bill, and said he has not been in contact with Senator Huggins
regarding HB 21. He pointed out significant changes proposed in
HB 21, which did not exist in the original Senate bill,
including compensation restrictions, bill page 9, and an
environmental impact review, bill page 10. He said an RTA is as
much about commerce as it is about transporting people.
1:15:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES inquired whether there is currently rail
service from Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport to
downtown Anchorage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered yes; however, it suffers from
lack of use and he characterized the status of the Bill
Sheffield Depot as murky. The airport train service is
localized, providing access to the immediate downtown hotel area
only, and is not what is envisioned for an RTA.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES recalled having met several people that
report frequent use of the airport commuter rail. She inquired
whether the existing system could be connected to the envisioned
Mat-Su commuter rail.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON described the access that the airport
commuter currently provides via a downtown connection to the
Alaska Railroad for service to Denali Park and Fairbanks. He
shared that the proposed legislation is to transport people and
commerce between Anchorage and Mat-Su locations, without
restrictions for including other, outlying, local governments
that might choose to join or form an RTA.
1:18:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ inquired about the current availability of
public transportation between Anchorage and Mat-Su destinations.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON deferred.
1:18:41 PM
JONATHAN CHURCH, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, Alaska
State Legislature, responded that the People Mover provides
periodic trips into Anchorage from a parking share lot located
near the Palmer hospital. To a follow-up question he stated his
believe that it offers regularly scheduled service five days a
week. The route offers service from the Mat-Su and along the
Glenn Highway with stops in Eagle River. He offered to provide
further information regarding ridership/usage.
1:20:03 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES shared that on dark early mornings with ice,
wind, and snow, being on a commuter train would be nicer than
driving a personal vehicle, and offered her understanding that
commuter trains had to be heavily subsidized. She asked for
clarification regarding funding an RTA, whether the service
would have the ability to generate revenue other than via fares,
and the types of subsidies available.
MR. CHURCH responded that Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
funds could be accessed.
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked whether FTA funding is based on ridership.
MR. CHURCH offered to provide further information.
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked whether all municipalities have
transportation powers; directing attention to the bill page 2,
line[s] 27 [and 28], which reads:
Creation of the authority is an exercise of a
municipality's transportation system powers.
MR. CHURCH deferred.
1:22:52 PM
SUSIE SHUTTS, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency, responded that transportation powers depend on
the municipality. She said that general-law municipalities
could exercise properly acquired powers as specified in statute
and not otherwise prohibited. Further, home-rule municipalities
may exercise all powers not prohibited by law or charter, and as
per authority described under AS 29.35.200 and AS 29.35.210.
Thus, municipalities are allowed to provide transportation
systems.
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked Mr. McGee whether the municipalities in
the populated areas all have transportation powers.
[Due to a technical difficulty, Mr. McGee was unable to
respond.]
1:24:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said that, relative to financing an
RTA, HB 21 does not address bonding authority, or stipulate
whether bonds would be through investment or revenue. The
immediate vision is for enhancement of the existing line and
development of a light rail system, which could then be expanded
upon. He pointed out that HB 21 carries a zero fiscal note
because it proposes a legal framework to facilitate a
cooperative RTA system between joint municipalities.
CO-CHAIR HUGHES inquired as to whether polling was conducted in
the Mat-Su to ascertain the level of interest for a commuter
rail.
MR. CHURCH answered that no study has been conducted of which he
is aware; however, personal experience indicates that
development of a commuter rail is a regular topic of
conversation in the Mat-Su.
1:26:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK asked for clarification whether, with all
the back and forth traffic to Anchorage for jobs, Wasilla is
considered a bedroom community.
CO-CHAIR HUGHES offered that, although Wasilla and Palmer did
not like that particular characterization, they are both
considered bedroom communities.
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK asked whether a system could allow users
to bring their personal vehicles on the commuter trains.
MR. CHURCH answered that a train service to Whittier has allowed
users to load their cars on to freight beds, but that type of
rail service may not be part of the vision for a commuter, light
rail train.
1:28:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said that the previously mentioned
study, completed by RLS & Associates, Inc., contains public
surveys under Appendix H.
1:28:59 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked about the range of the proposed fares and
the amount that a light rail fare might need to be subsidized to
make it affordable.
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK echoed concern for subsidizing the
service, and questioned the level of ridership that could be
expected between Wasilla and Anchorage.
CO-CHAIR HUGHES restated her question regarding the scope of
transportation powers held by municipalities.
1:29:41 PM
MARTY MCGEE, State Assessor, Division of Community and Regional
Affairs, Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic
Development (DCCED), referred to the response received from
Legislative Legal Services citing that, under statute, there is
a possibility for any municipality to acquire transportation
authority; however, he declined to offer an estimate for how
many local governments have pursued those powers.
1:30:10 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES requested further information regarding how the
eligibility of municipal powers may/may not be affected by the
adoption of HB 21.
1:30:32
MR. CHURCH paraphrased the written testimony of support for HB
21, received from Tim Sullivan, Manager, External Affairs,
Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
ARRC has supported, and continues to support, the
concept of providing daily commuter rail
transportation between the Mat-Su Valley and
Anchorage. Over the past decade, ARRC has constructed
a depot at the Palmer Fairgrounds, invested over $100
million in straightening track to shorten the commute,
and purchased two building in Wasilla with the plan to
convert them into a transit hub.
In 2014, ARRC modeled a demonstration project to
provide daily winter rail service between Wasilla and
Anchorage. Just like every commuter service in the
world, some of which are subsidized by up to 90%,
ARRC's model determined that a 3-year demonstration
project would face an approximate $7 million loss.
This loss would need to be subsidized through funds
raised by an RTA or other source. ARRC is not in a
position to absorb these costs.
MR. CHURCH added that HB 21, as proposed, does not seat a member
of the ARRC to the RTA board, which is an oversight that the
ARRC would like to see corrected in the final draft.
1:32:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON relayed that AARC estimates that a
three year demonstration project would cost about $7 million
dollars, and he offered to investigate affordability of that
project and report on the associated consumer interest. He
underscored that ARRC supports HB 21, and agreed to provide
further information to include fare estimates, ridership, and
FTA offset costs.
1:33:47 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES inquired further as to the genesis of HB 21:
inspiration from Senator Huggins, requests received from
municipalities, or personal insights by the sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON opined that the current level of
commuter traffic is not safe, efficient, or sustainable. He
estimated that ridership of the existing van services probably
alleviates less than one percent of the vehicles from the road,
and, as in many major urban cities, the Anchorage commuter
traffic requires attention. He said that the Mat-Su
Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) expressed interest in the
development of HB 21, and he credited Senator Huggins for the
initial revelation.
1:35:47 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked whether there were any letters of support
from municipalities.
MR. CHURCH said a letter of support was received from the
Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions (AMATS)
[The designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for
transportation required for receipt of federal highway or
transit assistance. AMATS is the MPO for the Anchorage Bowl and
Chugiak-Eagle River areas when federal transportation funds are
used.].
CO-CHAIR HUGHES inquired whether there other municipalities have
indicated an interest, such as Fairbanks or Juneau.
MR. CHURCH speculated on the possibility of seasonal interest
from Fairbanks and the Mate-Su for transporting season workers.
CO-CHAIR HUGHES noted the current train service to and from
those areas.
MR. CHURCH responded that winter train service is limited to
weekends only and, during the busy summer months, despite the
expanded, daily service, securing seats could be difficult.
1:37:47 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked whether Anchorage operates a municipal bus
service.
MR. CHURCH answered yes.
1:38:48 PM
MR. MCGEE stated that there would be some, minimal taxation
consequences with the passage of HB 21, due to the fact that any
property owned by an RTA would be tax exempt.
1:39:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON directed attention to the bill, page 8,
line 26, subsection (c) authorizing a municipality to invoke
payment in lieu of taxes (PILT). He paraphrased the language
which reads:
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of (a) of this
section, an authority and the municipalities
participating in the authority may enter into
agreements under which the authority agrees to pay the
participating municipalities' payments in lieu of
taxes and special assessments on real and personal
property of the authority that is within the taxing
jurisdiction of the municipality.
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked whether HB 21 stipulates how an RTA
governing board would be seated and whether it includes the
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOTPF).
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON responded that HB 21 stipulates the RTA
board membership, which includes a seat for DOTPF.
1:40:22 PM
MR. CHURCH pointed out that authorizing language is contained in
the bill, page 2, subsection (d), and further, paragraph (2)
indicates that the commissioner of DOTPF or the commissioner's
designee will serve as a member of the board. He clarified that
the policy board for a metropolitan planning organization (MPO)
is required, in order to receive federal funding, for areas with
populations in excess of 50,000. The Mat-Su does not qualify
for an MPO he said, and predicted that it may following the 2020
census.
CO-CHAIR HUGHES said she would like to know whether the
designation hinged on an actual census, and opined that the Mat-
Su population is close to 100,000.
CO-CHAIR HUGHES announced that public testimony would remain
open.
[HB 21 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 186 ver E.pdf |
HTRA 4/5/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 186 |
| HB186-SectionalAnalysis (5).pdf |
HTRA 4/5/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 186 |
| HB21 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HTRA 4/5/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 21 |
| HB21 ver W.pdf |
HTRA 4/5/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 21 |
| HB21 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HTRA 4/5/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 21 |
| HB21 Fiscal Note - DCCED.pdf |
HTRA 4/5/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 21 |
| HB21 Supporting Document - ADN 2-11-14.pdf |
HTRA 4/5/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 21 |
| HB21 Supporting Document - ADN 6-2-09.pdf |
HTRA 4/5/2016 1:00:00 PM |
HB 21 |