Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
02/21/2013 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Alaska State Rail Plan | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 21, 2013
1:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Peggy Wilson, Chair
Representative Doug Isaacson, Vice Chair
Representative Eric Feige
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Craig Johnson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
ALASKA STATE RAIL PLAN
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
MURRAY WALSH, Special Assistant; Roads to Resources Manager
Division of Program Development
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint presentation on the
Alaska State Rail Plan.
BRUCE CARR, Director
Strategic Planning
Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the PowerPoint
presentation on Alaska Rail Plan.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:05:24 PM
CHAIR PEGGY WILSON called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Representatives Lynn,
Kreiss-Tomkins, Isaacson, Feige, and P. Wilson were present at
the call to order. Representative Gattis arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
^Alaska State Rail Plan
Alaska State Rail Plan
1:06:21 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the first order of business would
be a PowerPoint presentation on the Alaska State Rail Plan.
1:06:31 PM
MURRAY WALSH, Special Assistant; Roads to Resources Manager;
Division of Program Development, Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities (DOT&PF), said one of his jobs is to manage
the development of the state rail plan although he is probably
better known as the Roads to Resources (R2R) manager. He stated
the DOT&PF is currently developing a rail plan for the state,
which has been underway for several months and will take most of
a year to complete.
MR. WALSH said the reason the state rail plan is being developed
is due, in part, to federal funding since the federal government
requires information on how the funds would be spent; however,
it is also a good idea for the state to conduct rail planning
[slide 2].
1:07:39 PM
MR. WALSH also referred to the Passenger Rail Investment and
Improvement Act (PRIIA) of 2008 that identifies funding needs
and sources. This document will serve as a guiding document for
any kind of transportation mode.
MR. WALSH referred to PRIIA and said the emphasis is on
passenger service although the law also addresses freight [slide
3].
MR. WALSH said the purpose of a state rail plan will be to
describe the state policy involving freight and passenger rail
transportation, including big projects such as rail extensions
or smaller projects such as at-grade intersections that need to
be made safer [slide 4].
1:09:02 PM
MR. WALSH stated that the state assigns the DOT&PF the
responsibility for planning all modes of transportation [slide
5]. He said the state not only has the Alaska Railroad
Corporation (ARRC) but the state also owns the White Pass and
Yukon Route Railway (WPYR), rising from Skagway [slide 6]. In
fact, the WPYR has a tremendous amount of Gold Rush history
associated with it, he said. He emphasized that railroads
transport - load on or offload - freight and people so it makes
sense that the DOT&PF would perform the rail plan. Looking at
slide 5, he pointed out that the Alaska Railroad rises from
Seward and ends just outside Fairbanks. He noted a project is
underway to lengthen the rail to Delta Junction, although the
rail will be a long time in coming since only the first phase of
the project has been funded.
CHAIR P. WILSON pointed to the map on slide 6 and asked whether
the next intersection is shown on the map.
MR. WALSH related the yellow route shows the crossing of the
Tanana River. He said, "That's what's being built now; that's
what's funded now." He indicated the North Pole to Delta
Junction route encompasses 81 miles, but it is very costly to
build. He explained that the route has been selected,
significant environmental work has been done, and the bridge
will have independent utility. In fact, the military will be
able to use it to bring artillery and vehicles to test firing at
the facility. He understood it is one of the few places in the
world that this can be accomplished. Thus the U.S. and its
allies will use it, he said.
1:11:36 PM
MR. WALSH turned to "Rail Economics - Freight" [slide 7]. He
said railroads are important due to economics and railroads can
move lots of weight more efficiently than land methods. Thus
the more freight that can be moved by rail, the less congestion
on Alaska's highways and less wear and tear on roads, which
makes the cost of living more affordable and industry possible
that may not otherwise be possible. As a result many reasons
exist to focus attention on rail. For example, one ton of cargo
can be trucked 59 miles, but the same freight can be hauled by
train 469 miles using one gallon of fuel [slide 8]. Certainly
ships are slightly cheaper, but not by much.
1:12:42 PM
MR. WALSH related that passenger service generally falls into
inter-city travel such as Anchorage to Fairbanks, short-haul
rail, and excursion, which is riding the train for the rail
experience or to see the countryside [slide 9]. Currently,
Alaska does not have any commuter rail, but the state rail plan
will consider it over time.
MR. WALSH related he previously discussed the northern rail
extension [slide 10], but another project the committee has
heard is the Port MacKenzie Extension [slide 11]. He indicated
he would leave that discussion to others.
1:13:44 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON referred to slide 11 to the Port MacKenzie
Extension map. She asked which rail currently exists or if the
slide is prospective.
MR. WALSH answered the permitting is in place and the courts
have cleared the way to build the rail. The different colors
refer to phases. He deferred to Bruce Carr for more detail.
CHAIR P. WILSON asked how far the first segment is from Port
MacKenzie [to the Point MacKenzie agricultural project]
MR. WALSH estimated the length is two to three miles in length.
1:14:37 PM
BRUCE CARR, Director, Strategic Planning, Alaska Railroad
Corporation (ARRC) answered that the different phases show how
the ARRC has broken the overall project down for a number of
different reasons, including how it can best be financed. He
recalled the committee was briefed last week from Mr. Ottesen,
DOT&PF and Mr. O'Leary, ARRC. He reiterated that each one of
the colors [on slide 11] represents a different rail segment.
The ARRC is starting to build the green line near the port,
although some work is being done at Houston headed south, he
said. He reported some segments span five miles, some spans
eight miles, and the blue line in the middle of the slide is
approximately 16 miles in length.
MR. WALSH related the plan is to build the embankment first, but
the rail will be laid all at once during the last phase of the
project.
MR. WALSH related the rail plan has a robust public input and
governmental coordination program [slide 12]. This process will
allow the public, state, federal, and local governments the
opportunity to participate in the plan, he said.
1:16:45 PM
MR. WALSH identified the steering committee members [slide 13,
Commissioner Bell, Kemp, and Sullivan, as well as Eugene
Hretzay, the President of the WPYR, and Christopher Aadnesen,
president of the ARRC. These five members met last fall and
provided the department considerable guidance on executing the
plan [slide 14] and the group will meet about mid-summer once
the plan has evolved more. He said at that point the department
will seek further guidance. He offered his belief that the
steering committee will work out well for the state rail plan.
1:17:44 PM
MR. WALSH reiterated that the steering committee will provide
guidance [slide 14]. He pointed out recommendations four and
five as being indicative of the broad range of recommendations.
The steering committee would like the state to seriously
contemplate commuter service as well as thinking big, including
considering other rail extensions. He acknowledged significant
analysis would need to be performed to do so. Most people
involved in the project have appreciated this type of guidance,
he said. He also related that recommendation six relates to
developing island railroads, such as the White Pass railroad
since it is not connected to other railroads. In fact, island
railroads are not new to Alaska, with island railroads built in
Nome and at the Kennecott mine. The Kennecott railroad brought
copper to tidewater at Cordova, he said.
1:19:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked whether the island railroad is
essentially from a shoreside terminal to an inland destination.
MR. WALSH answered yes, that is one example. In fact, the ARRC
does have rail to barge connections with Canada and the Lower
48; however, the term island railroad basically means tidewater
to some inland point, so in the case of the Kennecott the rail
brought ore to ships.
1:19:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked about the potential commuter service
from the Matanuska-Susitna valley to Anchorage. He indicated
commuters can easily drive their vehicles to the Mat-Su railroad
station, but the problem arises at the other end once the
commuter arrives in Anchorage and must still travel to work. He
reiterated that addressing the aspect of transporting people
from the railway station in Anchorage needs forceful direction,
in terms of the bus system.
MR. WALSH agreed that the commuter service can't just address
part of the system. In fact, the whole system needs to be
addressed from where to park vehicles at the beginning or how
passengers can travel to their final destinations. He recalled
some metro systems allow commuters to travel within a block of
their destination. Even though it's not going to be like that
in Anchorage, it is important to consider the pairing of the
rail to other transportation modes, he said.
1:21:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE related the Anchorage transit system, [the
People Mover], which may receive a government subsidy, could be
required to be creative about the bus schedules and terminal
locations. He offered his belief that it would fit in with this
plan, could relieve congestion on the Glenn Highway, and reduce
commuter costs. He characterized the [People Mover] as a
critical point.
MR. WALSH, in response to Chair Wilson, offered to take
questions back to the steering committee.
1:22:13 PM
MR. WALSH turned to more guidance from the steering committee
with a focus on resource development [slide 15]. Certainly,
trains are best used to transport high bulk, heavy weight items.
He stated in the Lower 48, as well as in Alaska, trains are
being used to move petroleum products. In Alaska, rail
transports refined products, but in the Lower 48 lots of trains
are transporting crude oil from the Bakken reserve in North
Dakota to any refinery. Even though it costs more money to
deliver crude oil by train than by pipeline at the current $100
per barrel some still find it affordable, he said. He related
the steering committee will focus on resource development in the
Arctic. He reported the steering committee will reconvene for
its next meeting sometime next summer, once the draft market
analysis has been completed.
1:23:25 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON suggested the [Rail Plan's steering] committee
could look at a transportation infrastructure fund as a means to
help accomplish the planning process. She thought it would be
very beneficial.
MR. WALSH agreed to do so.
1:24:15 PM
MR. WALSH turned to the rail plan content [slide 16]. He
explained the items listed are specified in the federal act and
in guidelines. He characterized them as being typical features
that any transportation plan would contain. After all, the
state will be thinking big and talking about building railroad
extensions, but the rail plan must also address immediate
concerns, including at-grade intersections that must be
addressed for safety concerns. He emphasized this effort as
being one of the most significant priorities for rail planning.
Thus the rail plan will also consider small items, including the
total inventory and track conditions for each railroad.
MR. WALSH next turned to the slide entitled, "Rail Plan Content"
[slide 17]. He stated that the rail plan will consider
intermodal connections and the history of publically-funded
projects. He offered that high-speed rail will not be seriously
considered although high-speed rail is mentioned in the plan
since the federal government has an interest in it. However,
high-speed rail is defined as 125 miles per hour or faster,
which is not possible with any at-grade crossings. In fact, he
stated that it is necessary to have large passenger traffic to
accommodate high-speed rail and Alaska just doesn't have those
populations.
1:26:11 PM
MR. WALSH turned to slide 18, entitled "Details." He stated
that the plan horizon is 20 years; the plan should be updated
every five years, although an update would not be as elaborate
or expensive as a whole new planning effort. The approval
process requires approval by the U.S. Department of
Transportation. Draft federal guidelines exist and Alaska's
plan will meet those guidelines, he said.
1:26:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON related to the 20 year plan horizon and
asked when the plan was last updated.
MR. WALSH answered that Alaska's State Rail Plan was updated in
1990.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked whether any opportunity,
financing, or funding has been lost since the rail plan has not
been updated.
MR. WALSH offered his belief that the answer is no, but
suggested Mr. Carr could better answer the question.
1:27:24 PM
MR. CARR responded that the last update to the state rail plan,
which was published in 1985, was done in 1990 to accommodate the
joint railroad tunnel through Whittier. The original Alaska
state rail plan was required by the local rail freight
assistance program, which he characterized as an attempt by the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the U.S. DOT to assist
local communities in improving freight connections within the
local area. In the 1980s and 1990s the program was very small,
falling in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, but when the
six-year highway authorization bills began the program changed.
In fact, to compare the 1990 environment of federal funding to
today is not possible since the whole philosophy has changed.
The FRA does not have programmatic funding in the same way that
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or the Federal Transit
Administration does. He said the FRA's main focus is rail
safety and it is also responsible for AMTRAC. In Moving Ahead
for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), the FRA has gained
several more responsibilities, although he was unsure of the
scope since MAP 21 is so new. However, in terms of whether the
state has lost federal funding since it does not have a state
plan, the answer is no. He acknowledged that the program is
changing and the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act
of 2008 told the states that absent a state rail plan the states
would not be eligible for federal programs, which would be most
applicable to a freight railroad and most importantly a
combination of freight and passenger railroad such as the ARRC.
He characterized the ARRC as being one of the unique railroads
in the county. He concluded that it is extremely important that
this rail plan be put into place and as Mr. Walsh pointed out
the overall system - including air, rail, highway, and marine -
must work together to provide an efficient low-cost highly
compatible transportation system.
1:31:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON understood the major impact of not
having a state rail plan is that the state will lose out on
federal funding due to the MAP 21 requirements. He further
understood that Alaska has lagged behind some states in terms of
updating the rail plan and, in particular, in terms of capital,
operational, and expansion opportunities, since the state has
concentrated on core necessities. He asked what necessitates
having the state rail plan updated every five years.
MR. CARR answered that if Alaska does not have a state rail
plan, the state will not be eligible to participate in some
federal programs. For example, the state would not be eligible
for the FRA grant program to realign railroads if the specific
project is not identified in a state rail plan. The state rail
plan would indicate a specific railroad is designated for
realignment, he said. He explained that the state currently
receives programmatic funds through the FHWA, which are not
affected by the Alaska state rail plan at this time. He
explained that the state rail plan will identify the commitment
to passenger service. He characterized the state rail plan as
being the core planning document for the state's railroads -
either private or state-owned.
MR. CARR, in response to a question, responded that Alaska is
ahead of some states and behind others. He related that some
states are currently working to update their plans while others
are performing analysis to see if their plans meet the
requirements of the federal plan. He predicted that within the
next couple of years all states will have upgraded their plans
to become eligible for some federal programs coming online.
1:34:31 PM
MR. WALSH related the state rail plan must be coordinated with
other modes of transportation [slide 19]. He recalled
Representative Feige mentioned earlier the importance of
coordinating the commuter rail with other modes of
transportation in Anchorage. He said the state will coordinate
the rail plan with the state's Long-range Transportation Plan
and MAP-21 and other planning documents to ensure that the rail
plan with state planning efforts.
MR. WALSH turned to public involvement [slide 20]; noting the
plan development process will have a robust public involvement
component. He related that public meetings will be held in
Haines, Skagway, Seward, Anchorage, the Mat-Su area, Fairbanks,
and Nome, as well as an online town hall. He explained that the
public will be able to go online and read the item and make
comments. He acknowledged this will not take the place of
public hearing, but will supplement it. Additionally, a 26-
person Technical Advisory Group has been appointed by the
commissioner of DOT&PF. Thus far 650 are on the e-mail list.
1:37:09 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked if any deadline completion date exists.
MR. WALSH answered that it will be completed during this
calendar year, probably by mid-fall.
1:37:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked if the state rail plan is being
developed with existing DOT&PF funds or if additional funds will
be needed.
MR. WALSH answered that the DOT&PF current has the planning
funds. In response to Chair Wilson, he offered to provide a
copy of the final plan sometime in the fall so she can possibly
convene a meeting.
1:39:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON hoped that the department would work to
incentivize private investment to construct the railroad since
other railroads have been built in that way. He suggested it as
a means for the state to avoid having to bear the brunt of the
railroad construction costs.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said he was curious about any
studies in terms of commuter rail for the Glenn Highway
Corridor.
MR. WALSH answered that the commuter prospects will be
considered since it is one of the steering committee's
recommendations; however, he was unsure that sufficient
passengers would warrant a commuter rail.
1:41:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked if he had any figures for
past studies on the costs.
MR. WALSH said he did not know.
CHAIR P. WILSON said that it would help [justify the commuter
rail] if the summer population was also year round.
MR. CARR said the ARRC completed a study in 2001-2002 between
Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna areas - Wasilla, Palmer,
Anchorage, and Girdwood. Indeed, the golden mile is the term
used for the range of getting people to the railway station and
then to work, which is calculated all over the country. He said
it is really a matter of the public transit agencies banding
together to decide that coordinated transit is necessary to
accomplish for the commuting public.
MR. CARR suggested that it isn't really possible to know the
specific numbers, which range from as high as 700 passengers a
day. He acknowledged that the department tends to be
conservative in its projections, although that hasn't always
been the case for transit agencies; however, many transit
companies have exceeded the projections in the first year. He
said there are 15,000 commuters between the Matanuska-Susitna
Valley and Anchorage each day. He suggested that if the ARRC
were to capture ten percent of the traffic it would amount to
1,500 commuters each way every day.
1:43:53 PM
MR. CARR pointed out the Share-A-Van program exists as well as
other vanpooling opportunities. He related a scenario
describing various ride sharing plans people have proposed that
they were willing to do. He said the commuting in Alaska is not
any different than many other places in the Lower 48, but the
state rail plan will be able to answer these questions.
1:45:40 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 1:45
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Alaska Rail Plan 2-21-13.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2013 1:00:00 PM |