Legislature(2025 - 2026)BARNES 124
05/08/2025 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 | |
| HB136 | |
| HB217 | |
| Presentation: Highway Safety Improvement Plan Update | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 136 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 167 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 217 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
May 8, 2025
1:06 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ashley Carrick, Co-Chair
Representative Ted Eischeid, Co-Chair
Representative Genevieve Mina
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Kevin McCabe
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Elexie Moore
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 136
"An Act relating to use of railroad easements."
- MOVED CSHB 136(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 217
"An Act regulating autonomous vehicles; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PRESENTATION: HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PLAN UPDATE
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 167
"An Act renaming Ruby Airport as Harold Esmailka Airport; and
providing for an effective date."
- REMOVED FROM AGENDA
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 136
SHORT TITLE: RAILROAD UTILITY CORRIDORS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KOPP
03/14/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/14/25 (H) TRA, JUD
04/01/25 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/01/25 (H) Heard & Held
04/01/25 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
05/06/25 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
05/06/25 (H) Heard & Held
05/06/25 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
05/08/25 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 217
SHORT TITLE: AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES
SPONSOR(s): TRANSPORTATION
05/02/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/02/25 (H) TRA, CRA
05/08/25 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, provided a brief overview
of CSHB 136, Version H, and answered questions on the proposed
amendments.
MEGHAN CLEMANS, External Affairs Director
Alaska Railroad Corporation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on the proposed
amendments to CSHB 136, Version H.
ANDY MILLS, Legislative Liaison, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
CSHB 136, Version H, and during the Highway Safety Improvement
Plan presentation.
MEREDITH TRAINOR, Staff
Representative Ted Eischeid
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of the sponsor, the House
Transportation Standing Committee, of which Representative
Eischeid co-chaired, gave a PowerPoint on HB 217.
PAM GOLDEN, State Traffic and Safety Engineer
Statewide Design and Engineering Services
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave a PowerPoint presentation on the
Highway Safety Improvement Plan update.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:06:34 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:06 p.m. Representatives Moore,
Tilton, Mina, McCabe, Eischeid, and Carrick were present at the
call to order. Representative Stutes arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
HB 136-RAILROAD UTILITY CORRIDORS
1:07:26 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 136, "An Act relating to use of railroad
easements." [Before the committee, passed on 05/06/25, was the
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 136, Version 34-
LS0640\H, Walsh, 4/28/25, ("Version H").
1:08:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP, Alaska State Legislature, stated that
CSHB 136, Version H, would affirm the state's right and the
state's obligation to set policy for the management of the
Alaska Railroad easements. He reasoned that because the Alaska
Railroad Corporation (ARRC) is state owned, the state holds the
authority to determine the usage of the railroad right-of-way.
He explained that Version H is about the balance between the
operational needs of the railroad and those Alaskans who own the
land beneath the easement. He stated that the proposed bill
would reaffirm usage of the right-of-way by property owners, as
long as the usage would not unreasonably interfere with railroad
operations. He gave a brief overview of the court cases
affirming this standard.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP acknowledged the concern that the proposed
legislation could preclude the railroad's ability to authorize
public trails along the right-of-way. He pointed out that an
amendment has clarified this issue. He added that public trail
approval is addressed by a different piece of proposed
legislation, HB 142. He maintained that Version H would not
interfere with ARRC's ability to coordinate with state or local
governments and public works; however, it would set a clear
policy for those who own land under the easement. He stated
that the proposed bill is about respect for private property and
urged the committee's support.
1:10:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA moved to adopt Amendment 1 to CSHB 136,
labeled 34-LS0640\H.5, Walsh, 5/7/25, which read as follows:
Page 2, line 8:
Delete "The corporation shall allow"
Insert "(a) Except as provided in (b) of this
section, the corporation may not charge a fee or
require a permit for"
Page 2, following line 10:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(b) The corporation may require the owner of
real property subject to an easement in favor of the
corporation to obtain a permit from the corporation to
construct a railroad crossing within the easement and
may charge the owner a revenue-neutral fee associated
with issuing the permit and developing and maintaining
the crossing."
CO-CHAIR CARRICK objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE MINA explained that Amendment 1 is in response to
the discussion concerning ARRC's ability to charge fees in the
future. She stated that Version H would codify the railroad's
current process, while the amendment would assure property
owners that they are not charged fees on easement usage, even if
ARRC changes its leadership. She pointed out that the policy of
revenue-neutral crossings would continue. She said she had
worked with the bill sponsor and ARRC to develop the amendment.
She added that the amendment would ensure the proposed
legislation would be about property rights, and not trail
issues.
1:12:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE discussed the need for a conceptual
amendment to Amendment 1. He pointed out that Amendment 1 would
deal with fees and permits that AARC could charge property
owners. Following this same logic, the prospective conceptual
amendment to Amendment 1 would apply to fees charged to state
agencies and public utilities. He argued that a state-owned
corporation should not be able to charge state agencies, as this
would only shift public dollars from one agency to another.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE continued that the conceptual amendment
would add a new subsection to prohibit ARRC from charging state
agencies or public utilities fees to use railway utility
corridors. He reasoned that Amendment 1 would be addressing
fees; therefore, this would be the time to create the language.
For example, he noted that the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities (DOT&PF) and the Matanuska Electrical
Association (MEA) are both paying fees to the railroad to use
the right-of-way. He maintained that the conceptual amendment
would stop the shifting of the state's money.
1:14:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1. He explained that this would insert a new
subsection in Amendment 1, following subsection (b), and it
would read, "The corporation may not charge a state agency or
public utility a fee to use a railway utility corridor."
CO-CHAIR CARRICK objected for the purpose of discussion.
1:15:20 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:15 p.m. to 1:17 p.m.
1:17:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA expressed appreciation, as ARRC's fees
should be transparent; however, she expressed opposition to
Conceptual Amendment 1. She argued that it does not belong in
the proposed amendment. She explained that the intent of the
proposed legislation would be to codify the Alaska Railroad's
current practices. She surmised that Amendment 1 would assuage
property owners, who feel they may be charged in the future by
the railroad for access to their property on the right-of-way.
She reasoned that Conceptual Amendment 1 would create a new
policy, which would not reflect the current policy.
1:18:58 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK requested comments from ARRC.
1:19:16 PM
MEGHAN CLEMANS, External Affairs Director, Alaska Railroad
Corporation, concerning Conceptual Amendment 1, pointed out that
there are real expenses associated with rail crossings. She
acknowledged that the railroad could not block railroad-crossing
access across the state; however, she pointed out that rail
crossings are a burden to the rail system. She explained that
it is a standard in the railroad business for users to assume
the cost and maintenance of crossings, because crossings are a
benefit to the users, but a burden to the railroad. She pointed
out that in 1988 a policy was created between ARRC and DOT&PF.
This policy covers new applications for road crossings,
diagnostics, and the entities sharing the expense.
MS. CLEMANS stated that it would be a concern for ARRC to assume
all the expenses for rail crossings. She maintained that the
crossing program has been designed to be revenue neutral, as it
is not a profit source. She emphasized that there are real
expenses in building the railroad infrastructure and meeting the
regulatory requirements, which are the expenses passed along to
users.
CO-CHAIR CARRICK requested an estimate of state agency fees and
public utility fees taken in by ARRC.
MS. CLEMANS responded that she does not have current numbers
available, but expressed the understanding that in 2022, from a
real estate perspective, the railroad took in around $82,000 in
fees, and from an annual signal maintenance perspective, it took
in around $250,000 in fees.
1:23:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES questioned the basis of the fees. She
expressed the understanding that it would be the railroad's
actual expense to maintain the crossings.
MS. CLEMANS answered in the affirmative. She explained that
ARRC fees would include internal administrative time, such as
reporting to the Federal Railroad Administration. Track and
crossing inspections would also be included in the fees, and she
pointed out that these occur throughout the year, with crossing
inspections occurring more frequently. She added that
incidental crossing costs would be covered under annual permit
fees. She stated that the study by the diagnostic team is an
expensive process, which could involve ARRC, DOT&PF,
municipalities, school districts, and law enforcement. These
studies would involve determining the new location of a crossing
and the type of crossing. She stated that a study could cost
over $10,000, adding that the railroad attempts to inform
applicants of this cost when the applications are made.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES acknowledged that a [1988] agreement
already exists between DOT&PF and ARRC. She questioned the
appropriateness of the legislature to "get in the middle of it."
She requested that ARRC report back to the committee the actual
revenue it is receiving.
1:26:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned the yearly maintenance cost of
a utility that is buried alongside the railroad. He referred to
a conversation with ENSTAR Natural Gas Company about the cost of
putting a pipeline along the railroad in Port MacKenzie. He
questioned the maintenance cost of an already buried pipeline
along the railroad. He opined that it would need no
maintenance.
MS. CLEMANS responded that for fees for utilities, ARRC uses the
[statutory-mandated] model for a self-sustaining corporation.
She stated that in this case a fee for longitudinal utility
lines would be charged and rolled into ARRC's real estate
revenue; however, maintenance fees would be charged on a
revenue-neutral basis, which can include reimbursable costs.
1:28:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the concern that, through
utilities and state agencies, the railroad would be charging
Alaskans for the use of the land they own. He explained that
this is the reasoning behind the conceptual amendment.
1:30:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES noted that ENSTAR is a private corporation
and agreed that it should be charged. She questioned whether
ARRC's financial information is available to the public.
MS. CLEMANS responded that ARRC's financials are available in
its annual report.
1:31:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP expressed appreciation for Amendment 1 and
Conceptual Amendment 1. Concerning the rate that utilities pay
for corridor usage, he pointed out ENSTAR and MEA have both
commented on ARRC's [high] rates. He expressed the
understanding that ENSTAR "pays more for one mile of access to
the right-of-way" than it does for "the other 800 miles of
pipeline right-of-way in Alaska." He expressed the
understanding that the conceptual amendment would provide a
check and balance of the rate structures. He suggested that
DOT&PF pays around $1.6 million in fees to the railroad because
of crossings.
1:33:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE reasoned that because ENSTAR is a private
utility company, costs would be passed to Alaskans via a rate
increase. He expressed the understanding that these rates could
not be negotiated.
1:34:33 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID expressed confusion on the difference in the
costs that have been quoted. He expressed interest in seeing
the [1988] agreement, the numbers printed out, and testimony
from DOT&PF and ENSTAR. Without these conversations, he stated
that he could not support the conceptual amendment.
1:35:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES concurred with the basis of the conceptual
amendment; however, the [1988] agreement between the state and
the railroad needs to be understood. She expressed uncertainty
on the "fallout" from Amendment 1 with Conceptual Amendment 1.
1:36:12 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK expressed support for the "spirit" of the
amendment, and she expressed concern on the amount of the fees
discussed. She questioned the details of the charges,
especially concerning the utilities. She stated that without
having this information, she would be unable to decide on the
[conceptual] amendment. She questioned DOT&PF concerning the
fees it pays to ARRC.
1:37:15 PM
ANDY MILLS, Legislative Liaison, Special Assistant, Office of
the Commissioner, Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities, responded that from fiscal year 21 (FY21) to FY25,
the railroad charged DOT&PF $1.6 million for the Northern
Region. He noted that he could also provide the Central
Region's fee. He continued that DOT&PF has been charged annual
railroad-signal maintenance fees of around $500,000. He
suggested that the conversations on the different fees should be
kept separate.
1:38:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE noted the 1988 agreement between the
railroad and DOT&PF. He questioned whether this had to do with
signal maintenance and road crossings, but not with right-of-way
fees.
MR. MILLS expressed uncertainty on this, and he offered to
follow up with the information after the meeting.
1:39:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the desire to not "torpedo" or
delay the proposed legislation with the conceptual amendment.
He questioned the will of the committee.
CO-CHAIR CARRICK suggested that he withdraw the conceptual
amendment, as more information would be necessary to continue
the discussion. She maintained her objection to Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 1.
1:40:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE moved to withdraw Conceptual Amendment 1,
to Amendment 1. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment
1 was withdrawn.
1:40:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP expressed appreciation for Amendment 1 to
Version H. He noted the previous testimony of a landowner who
has a private rail crossing, and he pointed out the many homes
in Seward with private rail crossings. He expressed the
understanding that these landowners are paying $1,000 a year in
fees to ARRC. He expressed disbelief that this amount would be
"revenue neutral," as these fees are onerous to the landowners.
He expressed support for Amendment 1, and he questioned the
definition of "revenue neutral."
1:42:52 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK withdrew her objection to Amendment 1. There
being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
1:43:11 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK expressed her appreciation for the proposed
bill and the stakeholder discussion that ensued. She pointed
out the public comments concerning land management around the
railroad right-of-way, as there appears to be a need for
classification.
1:44:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA thanked the bill sponsor, and she thanked
the public advocates for their input. She reiterated that the
discussion on the rights of property owners is important. She
pointed out the discussion is not only about trails, but it is
also about fees and reconciling the differences between the
railroad and property owners.
1:45:38 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID expressed appreciation for the robust
discussion that the proposed legislation created. He noted that
the process has been educational, and the history is interesting
in terms of the distrust it has created. He expressed
appreciation for the consideration for the committee substitute,
which recognizes potential trail usage in the right-of-way. He
recognized that the proposed legislation is not "a trail's
issue." He also pointed out the importance of definitions in
all legislation.
1:47:40 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:47 p.m. to 1:48 p.m.
1:48:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved to report CSHB 136, Version 34-
LS0640\H, Walsh, 4/28/25, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 136(TRA) was reported out of the
House Transportation Standing Committee.
1:49:00 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:49 p.m. to 1:56 p.m.
HB 217-AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES
1:56:56 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 217, "An Act regulating autonomous vehicles;
and providing for an effective date."
1:57:20 PM
MEREDITH TRAINOR, Staff, Representative Ted Eischeid, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, the House
Transportation Standing Committee, of which Representative
Eischeid co-chaired, gave a PowerPoint on HB 217 [hard copy
included in the committee packet]. She stated that HB 217 is a
companion bill to SB 148. She stated that HB 217 would add
language and regulations on the definition of "autonomous
vehicles" to statute for the first time. She began on slide 2,
stating that the proposed bill would establish requirements on
autonomous vehicles used for interstate commerce, shipping of
commercial goods, and passenger transport. For these uses, she
stated that the proposed legislation would require a human-
safety operator, who meets federal and state requirements for
autonomous and non-autonomous operation. She stated that the
operator must be present in order to operate or turn off the
vehicle. She added that this would not address personal and
noncommercial purposes, but these operators would still need to
meet the same federal and state requirements.
MS. TRAINOR stated that the proposed legislation would also
establish guidelines for owner and user liability, with
allowances for accidents caused by software or hardware
malfunctions. She stated that the proposed bill also would
establish new definitions related to autonomous vehicle
technology and functions, as seen on slide 3.
1:59:49 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID questioned whether Ms. Trainor has had any
experience with a self-driving vehicle.
MS. TRAINOR responded that while she was in a Tesla, the driver
had put the car in the self-driving function and the car
navigated a roundabout. In response to a follow-up question,
she stated that the car had rubbed against the curb and the
driving was imprecise.
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID expressed the importance of the proposed
legislation, as it would require a driver onboard to take
control.
2:01:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned having an operator in an
autonomous vehicle, as it would defeat the purpose. He also
questioned the definition of "interstate commerce," concerning
the difference with "intrastate commerce." He opined whether
drone usage would be covered under the proposed legislation. He
pointed out that driving in snowy conditions could present a
problem. He surmised that a presentation, possibly from a
manufacturer, would be helpful.
CO-CHAIR CARRICK expressed agreement on the need for a
presentation. Concerning the rapid pace of technology, she
questioned the development of autonomous vehicles and whether a
driver would always be needed.
2:04:23 PM
MS. TRAINOR responded by pointing out the importance of defining
"autonomous vehicle" in statute, as there is no definition for
this in the motor vehicle statute. She pointed out that the
usage of these vehicles has increased, and this is a concern
considering the importance of shipping in the state. She opined
that there could be a point in the future when a human-safety
operator would not be needed.
2:05:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON discussed her son's Tesla, which has the
capability to drive on its own. She described her experience in
the car. She said, "It has done a fine job of driving itself."
She added that when she was in the vehicle, her son was there,
and this had made her more "comfortable."
2:07:25 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK questioned whether other states with this type
of legislation would have requirements for a driver's level of
awareness.
MS. TRAINOR expressed uncertainty, and she offered to follow up
with an answer.
2:08:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE conjectured how this would affect a charge
of driving under the influence.
2:08:58 PM
MS. TRAINOR stated that the proposed bill would require safety
operators to meet federal and state requirements for operating
autonomous and nonautonomous vehicles, and this would cover a
driving under the influence charge.
2:09:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA noted a letter in opposition from the
Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which concerned the lack of
references to the National Society of Automotive Engineers'
(SAE's) definitions. She questioned whether this concern has
been raised.
MS. TRAINOR responded that she has looked at SAE standards,
which define incremental increases in the level of automation.
Except for the letter in question, she stated there has been no
other voiced concerns about SAE standards. She suggested that
this could be addressed in the future.
2:10:45 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK addressed her earlier question concerning a
driver's level of awareness. She read from the section of the
proposed legislation addressing this and expressed the
understanding that an operator would need to be as alert and
aware as a person driving a nonelectric vehicle.
2:11:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA pointed out that the Alliance for Automotive
Innovation's letter also expressed concern that the presumption
of liability would always be on the human-safety operator, as
this would not be congruent with other legislation concerning
tort law.
MS. TRAINOR responded that the current version of the proposed
legislation gives the primary responsibility to the operator,
and then it progresses to the maker of the vehicle through four
steps. She expressed the understanding that, under normal tort
law, the driver has the initial liability, and then any issues
with the manufacturing of the vehicle could shift
responsibility. She suggested that this part of the bill
language could be eliminated, as the same parties would be
responsible in the same order. She opined that this could be a
redundancy issue in the language of the proposed legislation.
2:13:10 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK announced that HB 217 was held over.
2:13:54 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:13 p.m. to 2:16 p.m.
^PRESENTATION: Highway Safety Improvement Plan Update
PRESENTATION: Highway Safety Improvement Plan Update
2:16:52 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK announced that the final order of business
would be a presentation on the Highway Safety Improvement Plan
update.
2:17:24 PM
PAM GOLDEN, State Traffic and Safety Engineer, Statewide Design
and Engineering Services, Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities (DOT&PF), gave a PowerPoint presentation on
the Highway Safety Improvement Plan (HSIP) [hard copy included
in the committee packet]. She began the presentation on slide 2
and briefly spoke about the history of HSIP. She stated that
the primary purpose of HSIP is to reduce traffic fatalities and
serious injuries on all public roads. She stated that HSIP
consists of three main components: the Strategic Highway Safety
Plan, highway safety improvement projects, and the Railway-
Highway Crossing Program. She stated that, at the federal
level, HSIP is required to be a data driven program.
MS. GOLDEN pointed out that the federal code determines the
types of projects that can be funded by HSIP, as seen on slide
3. These projects include construction, data analysis, vehicle
technology, road safety, and transportation safety planning.
She stated that the recent Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act allows for 10 percent of apportionment to be spent on
projects that support safety, such as education, law
enforcement, emergency medical services, safety research, and
non-infrastructure safe routes for school activities.
2:20:55 PM
MS. GOLDEN moved to slide 4 and addressed HSIP funding. She
stated that $1.2 million is dedicated to railroad crossings.
She explained that the Alaska Railroad Corporation supplies a
list of projects to DOT&PF, and these two entities work together
to support the projects. She continued, stating that the
regular uncategorized funds have a 10 percent match. Addressing
the penalty for vulnerable road users, she said this is
triggered when the fatality rate in the state is above 15
percent. She noted that the funding for this is around $6.4
million. She addressed the penalty funds, which are financial
penalties from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for
noncompliance with federal safety and infrastructure standards,
such as the federal standards for open container and repeat
offender laws. She stated that this totals around $26.6
million.
2:22:21 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID questioned the definition of "vulnerable road
user," and he questioned the number of these fatalities in the
state.
MS. GOLDEN, in response, defined "vulnerable road user" as those
using the transportation system by either walking or rolling,
such as pedestrians, bicyclists, rollerbladers, and skaters.
She estimated that last year there had been around 15 vulnerable
road-user fatalities and up to 55 total road-user fatalities.
She added that the vulnerable road-user penalty has already been
triggered for the current year.
2:23:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned whether those riding electric
bikes would be considered vulnerable road users.
MS. GOLDEN expressed the understanding that they would be
included.
CO-CHAIR CARRICK suggested that Representative McCabe's question
was rhetorical. She questioned whether there are any federal or
state definitions for electric bikes.
MS. GOLDEN expressed uncertainty, adding that the Municipality
of Anchorage does have rules. She noted that there are
questions about electric bikes, all-terrain vehicles, and golf
carts in other states. She said, "That is something we're all
sort of figuring out as we go."
2:25:15 PM
MS. GOLDEN addressed the creation of HSIP projects. On slide 5,
she noted that the Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program
Handbook would be updated with every funding bill. She pointed
out that the handbook updates each region's process. She
discussed the process of determining patterns for crashes in the
state. To get beyond traditional data, she said that crowd-
source data and speed data would be examined.
MS. GOLDEN moved to slide 6 and discussed safety
countermeasures. She stated that once crash patterns are
determined, proven countermeasures for crash reductions are
examined. She pointed out FHWA's 28 proven counter measures,
and she discussed the Crash Modification Factor tool, which is a
clearinghouse for crash data research. The verification of
countermeasures would be included in this as well. She
discussed how countermeasures are determined, which includes the
context of the location, a review of existing planning
documents, and coordination with local governments.
2:28:39 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID directed attention to data from other states
concerning vulnerable user laws. He questioned whether there is
any data showing the effectiveness of these laws, especially
concerning the reduction of vulnerable user accidents.
MS. GOLDEN, in response, expressed uncertainty. She stated that
she would follow up to the committee after making inquiries.
2:30:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE directed attention to countermeasure
efforts and the coordination with local governments. He stated
that he has two local governments in his district that are not
part of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and both have
requested a lower speed limit on sections of the Parks Highway.
He questioned whether these requests would go through HSIP.
MS. GOLDEN, in response, stated that speed-reduction requests
along the Parks Highway would go through the regional office.
In response to a follow-up question on whether this would be a
countermeasure, she pointed out the complexity of changing speed
limits within sections of a road. She explained that changing a
speed limit without the presence of law enforcement, or a major
change to the road, would not always result in drivers changing
their behavior, as signs do not always work. She stated that a
law enforcement presence is what helps in the "routine education
of drivers in the area."
2:33:14 PM
MS. GOLDEN moved to slide 7 and pointed out the safety flares
made to support first responders and emergency medical services.
She stated that once a project has been selected in the
statewide program, funding is applied to what can be delivered
fastest and most effectively with the funding available.
MS. GOLDEN moved to slide 8 and discussed project development
and delivery. She stated that once a project is approved,
regions would do the design and construction activities,
including public involvement. However, sometimes the scope
would need to change, such as when a better project arises, or
another option is realized. When this happens, the project is
renominated and reprioritized for funding. She stated that the
program must evaluate its performance, and once three years of
post-construction crash data is available, a final benefit-cost
calculation for the project is made. This would then be
reported to FHWA. She expressed pride that, as of 2024, Alaska
HSIP projects have an average benefit-cost ratio of six to one
for money spent.
2:35:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES commented on a situation in Kodiak, where
DOT&PF repeatedly refills gravel in a particularly large
pothole, instead of doing a repair. She expressed concern that
the hole is big, and, if a car goes into the hole or swerves to
miss it, someone could be hurt. She questioned why this could
not be repaired.
MS. GOLDEN responded that HSIP does not make repairs on public
roads, as the program is restricted from doing routine
maintenance. She stated that it could make upgrades to roads,
suggesting that sometimes an upgrade could be used strategically
to help a repair.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES questioned which agency could do the
repair.
2:37:56 PM
ANDY MILLS, Legislative Liaison, Special Assistant, Office of
the Commissioner, Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities, expressed appreciation for the question. He stated
that funding these repairs illustrates a fundamental challenge
for the department. He explained that federal funds are
restricted and often cannot go towards maintenance and repair;
therefore, road repairs would be exclusively state funded. He
pointed out that state funding for repairs has been reduced or
flat over the past decade, and in the current budget, there are
reductions. He concurred that upgrade projects could address
underlying issues with roads; however, this could take years.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES reiterated the significance of the
pothole.
2:40:33 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID expressed the understanding that the federal
dollars the state receives would help build new roads, but once
the roads are built, the state would do the maintenance and
repair.
MR. MILLS expressed agreement with the statement, and he pointed
out that this is why the governor and the legislature have
"grappled" with the motor fuel tax. He stated that the tax is
an example of a user fee. He pointed out the rising use of
electric vehicles and explained that they are heavier and wear
more on the road; however, this usage does not contribute to the
fuel tax, which pays for road repairs. He indicated that this
would be a larger, different conversation.
2:41:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA questioned HSIP's role in Anchorage's
protected bike lanes.
MS. GOLDEN responded that these lanes were created through a
research program.
2:42:27 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK made closing comments.
2:43:22 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID made closing comments. For the record, he
thanked Co-Chair Carrick for her mentorship.
CO-CHAIR CARRICK thanked the legislative staff.
2:44:44 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:44
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 217 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HTRA 5/8/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 217 |
| HB 217 Version A.pdf |
HTRA 5/8/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 217 |
| HB 217 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HTRA 5/8/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 217 |
| HB 217 Letter of Opposition, Alliance for Automotive Innovation.pdf |
HTRA 5/8/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 217 |
| House Bill 217 Presentation.pdf |
HTRA 5/8/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 217 |
| DOTPF HSIP Presentation.pdf |
HTRA 5/8/2025 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 136 Amendment H.5.pdf |
HTRA 5/8/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 136 |
| House Bill 217 Support Letter Teamsters 959 051225.pdf |
HTRA 5/8/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 217 HB 217 Support Letter Teamsters 959 |