Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/23/2002 01:11 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 502-RUSTIC ROADS AND HIGHWAYS [Contains discussion of HB 473, which had been combined into HB 502 and then removed; contains discussion of HB 8, a portion of which is included in Section 4 of HB 502, Version T] Number 1792 CHAIR KOHRING announced that the next matter before the committee would be HOUSE BILL NO. 502, "An Act relating to the designation of and funding for rustic roads and highways; and providing for an effective date." [In packets was a proposed committee substitute (CS), Version T, labeled 22-LS0822\T, Utermohle, 4/15/02.] Number 1806 MIKE KRIEBER, Staff to Representative Vic Kohring, Alaska State Legislature, testified on behalf of the House Transportation Standing Committee, sponsor of HB 502. He reminded members that HB 473 and HB 502 had been merged because of common ground. Due to insufficient common ground, however, the bills had been split once again after there was conference with committee members and Representative Green, sponsor of HB 473. MR. KRIEBER said Version T has all references to HB 473 stripped out of it. Donlin Creek's mention as a rustic road was removed from Section 2. In addition, funding percentages were modified. Page 4 [paragraph 2] brings funding for the community transportation system back up to 33 percent. [Paragraph] 4, page 4, increases the funding for the Trails and Recreational Access for Alaska (TRAAK) system from 4 to 5 percent. He pointed out that "rustic roads" include trails, so recreational opportunities will be increased. Also expanded would be "safe linkages." Number 2046 MR. KRIEBER further explained that Version T contains a new addition on page 5 [Section 4]. He told of a "road task force" bill [HB 8] that had passed the House and was still in the Senate Rules Standing Committee. The task force would address a list of roads and determine what actions could be taken to implement their construction. Version T places that list of roads in HB 502. The task force portion of the bill would not be included, however. MR. KRIEBER pointed out that instead, Version T requires the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) to carry out the study. The report would list the roads and any other linkages or rustic trails, and identify whether they should be a rustic road or trail or should be part of the community transportation system, national highway system, or state highway system. He told the committee the report would identify the costs, potential environmental issues, and the permitting schedule, and would provide a proposed funding schedule. He said the report would give the legislature a tool for determining whether to fund these roads. Number 2164 MR. KRIEBER discussed the issue of applicability as found on page 7. A July 1 implementation date would cut the department short for adequate planning. Version T would allow an extra year for implementation in order to allow the department to get into the next STIP [Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan] cycle so that it could carefully merge the new funding program into its long-range planning process. Number 2209 REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI moved to adopt the proposed CS, version 22-LS0822\T, Utermohle, 4/15/02, as the working document. There being no objection, Version T was before the committee. Number 2241 JEFF OTTESEN, Planning Chief, Division of Statewide Planning, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, testified before the committee, noting that the department had worked with Mr. Krieber to make the bill work and not "leave money on the table." Nevertheless, he stated the department's philosophical opposition to the bill. He characterized the reduction of the TRAAK program from 8 to 5 percent as a key problem with Version T. Over three years, this would take $36 million from a large number of projects across the state that could use the funding. Another problem would be the strict design standard imposed in statute that some roads may not be paved. MR. OTTESEN announced that AS 19.10.160 specifies that the department will follow the design standards of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). He said AASHTO had recently released a new standard for low-volume roads; it is a national standard and must be followed. He told the committee that departmental decisions about what to do with a road aren't simple management decisions, but are public-process decisions. The department goes to the public and environmental agencies; there are many interests to satisfy. The bill would take that management, as well as the political and public process, and put it into statute, thereby taking away a great deal of flexibility. Regarding Section 6 of Version T, Mr. Ottesen said the department has been looking at new, low-volume roads in its "area plan process" for several years. He gave the examples of upgrading the road from Williamsport to Pile Bay and a new road on the North Slope as projects the department has been reviewing. TAPE 02-11, SIDE B Number 2328 REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI mentioned the road from Williamsport to Pile Bay and said it is one reason he supports the bill. He stated that the department was told of the wish to see the road built in the 1980s, and it has taken until now to "get it on the horizon." Another category would allow the road to make it on the list and be identified [for construction]. MR. OTTESEN said the new STIP category - the Alaska Highway System - has approximately 40 roads. Most are existing state- owned roads, and several are proposed roads. Included in that list is the road from Williamsport to Pile Bay. He said 8 percent of the STIP would go to this new category of roads, which he characterized as very similar to the rustic road category. The main differences would be that the department's list is changed by regulation, not statute, so roads could be added more quickly, and that the design standard could be determined through the aforementioned public process. The change took place on March 8, 2002, so it hadn't had time to work yet. Number 2245 REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said it sounds as though the department is doing the same thing as HB 502. He asked if the diversion of TRAAK monies would still yield the same amount of federal funds. MR. OTTESEN said the state would still get the same amount. REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked if the lower design standards would affect the federal TRAAK funds. Number 2211 MR. OTTESEN cited AS 19.10.160: The department shall prepare and adopt uniform standard plans and specifications for the establishment, construction, and maintenance of highways in the state. The department may amend the plans and specifications as it considers advisable. The standards must conform as closely as practicable to those adopted by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. MR. OTTESEN said that since statehood, the department has followed this statute, which protects the department from tort claims. REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI responded that many of proposed roads had been built before statehood and the statute. He asked what percentage of [the new proposed Alaska Highway System] was built prior to 1958. MR. OTTESEN said the new system is made up almost entirely of roads owned by the state, and people are already driving on them. Many roads are in remote areas; they have not fared well in the STIP process since 1995, when the state established the National Highway System, Community Transportation Program, and TRAAK. He noted that community donations, community maintenance contributions, and traffic volume [drive priority in the STIP]. He characterized these remote roads as the "orphans" of that system. He restated his belief that the main differences between the rustic roads and roads in the Alaska Highway System are that the latter would be established in regulation, and that the bill would impose a no-pave standard. Number 2114 REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said it sounded as though deviating from federal standards would not be an issue because most of the roads had been built before AS 19.10.160; therefore, there would not be a problem with maintaining the roads. MR. OTTESEN pointed out that every time a road is rebuilt, the current standards must be considered. REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI read from the statute, saying, "as close a practicable". He surmised that the department would have a great deal of latitude because of that. MR. OTTESEN replied, "There is a lot of latitude until you're in a court of law and someone says, 'There's not a guardrail there, and why not? The standard says there should be.' And then your latitude looks pretty thin at that point." He gave the example of single-lane roads and how those present problems of standards. Number 2043 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked how long some of the projects in her district would be postponed as a result of the $12 million being removed from the TRAAK. MR. OTTESEN characterized Representative Wilson's question as a difficult one because lower-scoring projects may be trumped by higher-scoring projects. The lower-scoring projects linger because of the program's being shrunk. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON expressed concern about that. She asked if the state could wait to see how it would work out. She said she has new concerns about the bill. Number 1954 REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH expressed concern about what the bill is trying to accomplish since it has been split from HB 473. He said it was supposed to be a House Transportation Standing Committee bill, but he didn't help draft it and doesn't even know its purpose. CHAIR KOHRING said it was from his office and was labeled a House Transportation Standing Committee bill because it was filed after the February 15th deadline for personal legislation. MR. KRIEBER added that the purpose of the bill is to address an area where the department has not provided focus in the past - looking at new roads. He complimented the department for "the Northwest Plan" and said it is starting to make some movement towards economic development roads, but he said the department is not looking at the smaller, basic linkages that help in lowering the cost of living in areas. In areas where people must fly in and bring fuel in, people have higher costs, as does the state where there is power cost equalization (PCE). He indicated it is a policy issue for the department with regard to coming forward and making recommendations on how to spend money on [the rustic road] category. Delaying the bill would [cause three years to be lost] because of the 2004-to-2006 STIP cycle. Number 1800 REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH asked why the department's new category would not work. MR. KRIEBER characterized the department's new category and the rustic roads category as very similar. REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH asked: Why not have a bill that says there is a rustic road category that adds to what [the department] has already proposed? MR. KRIEBER answered that the bill assigns a funding percentage to [the funding categories]. The rustic road funding category would still allow money to be spent on roads identified as rustic; enhancements could still be made. He called it a policy issue of the legislature. It would help small-scale projects get done. Number 1725 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked how the fiscal notes would be figured. MR. KRIEBER answered, "What this bill provides is allowing the use of the rustic road fund category to fund this project without identifying them as rustic roads specifically." REPRESENTATIVE WILSON mentioned $12 million coming out of the TRAAK funding. MR. KRIEBER said the cost was internal. The department will be able to go out and do a "real" study. He characterized the task force study as ineffective. The bill would provide a funding source for improvements, to focus on the roads listed as well as any others that come forward. However, it doesn't provide incentive for DOT&PF to pave roads with low usage. He took issue with Mr. Ottesen's position on the public process and cited the Hatcher Pass Road as one where the public-input process failed. Number 1603 MR. KRIEBER said with regard to the TRAAK funding, the scores count. New projects can bump projects that have been on the list for ten years. With the implementation [in Version T], the department is provided two years of current funding in the STIP to carry it out. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said the bill would cost her district three projects. She asked what difference would be made by the economic study on any other projects in her district. MR. OTTESEN said it would not make any difference. The money would come out of the same rustic road money discussed earlier - the $12 million shifting from TRAAK to rustic roads, and another $4 million from the Alaska Highway Program. MR. OTTESEN said the department had been looking at the short roads - roads to landfill sites, water points, barge points and others - and building them. The next category up - roads that link villages and allow them to share infrastructure - have been held up by environmental processes and agencies. He told the committee it is not a lack of departmental will; it is the process that slows the construction of the roads. He said getting to "yes" and permits in hand is the hardest part of the process. Number 1466 CHAIR KOHRING offered that the goal of the bill is to ensure funding that would open up more areas for access and economic development; it is also to promote recreational access. He concluded by saying he didn't want to push the bill in the absence of the committee's consensus. He indicated HB 502 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|