Legislature(2023 - 2024)ANCH LIO DENALI Rm
11/20/2023 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 | |
| Presentation(s): Port Mackenzie and Port Mackenzie Rail Extension, Past, Present and Future | |
| Presentation(s): Exploring the Future of Rail Development: Vision, Plans, Federal Funding, and Efficient Freight Transportation – an In-depth Discussion | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
Anchorage, Alaska
November 20, 2023
1:01 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Kevin McCabe, Chair
Representative Sarah Vance, Vice Chair
Representative Tom McKay
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Jesse Sumner
Representative Louise Stutes (via teleconference)
Representative Genevieve Mina
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE (via teleconference)
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON (via teleconference)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): PORT MACKENZIE AND PORT MACKENZIE RAIL
EXTENSION~ PAST~ PRESENT AND FUTURE
- HEARD
PRESENTATION(S): EXPLORING THE FUTURE OF RAIL DEVELOPMENT:
VISION~ PLANS~ FEDERAL FUNDING~ AND EFFICIENT FREIGHT
TRANSPORTATION AN IN-DEPTH DISCUSSION
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
MIKE BROWN, Manager
Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation, titled
"Port MacKenzie: A Small Industrial Port in Upper Cook Inlet."
DAVE GRIFFIN, Manager
Port Operations
Port MacKenzie
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a video overview of Port
MacKenzie.
BILL O'LEARY, President and CEO
Alaska Railroad Corporation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a PowerPoint on the Alaska
Railroad.
BRIAN LINDAMOOD, Vice President and Chief Engineer
Alaska Railroad Corporation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a PowerPoint on the Alaska
Railroad.
MEGHAN CLEMENS, Director
External Affairs
Alaska Railroad Corporation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a PowerPoint on the Alaska
Railroad.
ROBERT HALL, President
Houston Chamber of Commerce
Houston, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided public testimony on the
presentations.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:01:27 PM
CHAIR KEVIN MCCABE called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:01 p.m. Representatives Mina,
Sumner, Cronk, McKay, and McCabe were present at the call to
order. Representatives C. Johnson and Vance arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
^PRESENTATION(S): PORT MACKENZIE AND PORT MACKENZIE RAIL
EXTENSION, PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE
PRESENTATION(S): PORT MACKENZIE AND PORT MACKENZIE RAIL
EXTENSION, PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE
1:02:39 PM
CHAIR MCCABE announced that the first order of business would be
a presentation on Port MacKenzie and the Port MacKenzie railroad
extension.
1:04:34 PM
MIKE BROWN, Manager, Matanuska-Susitna Borough, provided a
PowerPoint presentation, titled "Port MacKenzie: A Small
Industrial Port in Upper Cook Inlet," [hard copy included in the
committee packet."
1:04:45 PM
DAVE GRIFFIN, Manager, Port Operations, Port MacKenzie, provided
a video overview of Port MacKenzie.
1:05:01 PM
MR. BROWN stated that the presentation would provide an overview
of Port MacKenzie and the Port MacKenzie Rail Extension (PMRE).
He provided a short video on the overview that featured Mr.
Brown. He moved to slide 3 and showed a map of the proposed
access to the port. He discussed this in further detail,
indicating the locations of PMRE and the West Susitna access
road. He moved to slide 4 and discussed the deep draft dock and
barge dock. He stated that of the 9,000 acres of land adjacent
to the port, 7,000 are available for development. He pointed
out the port's equipment and services, which include a 7,000
square-foot terminal building that could be used for office
space.
1:13:50 PM
MR. BROWN, in response to a committee question, stated that the
9,000 acres of land in the Port District is publicly owned. He
said that there are some state components, such as the
University of Alaska land. He added that the private property
around the area is small.
1:15:24 PM
MR. BROWN moved to slides 5 through 7 and displayed several
pictures of Port MacKenzie. He stated that one of the key
features of the port is the land available beyond the 9,000
acres, as seen in the photos. He noted the 370-foot face of the
barge dock and the deep draft dock at 1,200 feet. He pointed
out the amount of space available for moving cargo on and off
the vessels and the paved access to the uplands.
1:17:50 PM
MR. BROWN, in response to a committee question, stated that
there is a slide to explain the plans for the barge ramp.
MR. BROWN, in response to a committee question, explained how
the conveyor belt, which was originally built for wood chips,
was used in this capacity. In response to a follow-up question,
he stated that concerning the idea of exporting woodchips, the
timber would have come from the borough. He suggested that this
was not successful because of the spruce bark beetle problem.
MR. BROWN, in response to a committee question, stated that the
conveyor belt had been used for a coal test shipment, but there
were challenges with this.
1:21:04 PM
MR. BROWN moved to slides 8 through 10 and displayed several
images of the port's usage. He moved to slide 11 and pointed
out the plans for future work on the port. He stated that there
are several federal grants for this, including a grant for the
deep draft dock pile sleeves, as these would extend the life of
the dock. He noted the addition of a 300-foot by 200-foot barge
ramp, as this would add barge-maintenance capability to the port
and give barges an extended-stay capability. He discussed the
purchase of a 75-ton mobile harbor crane using another federal
grant.
MR. BROWN, in response to a committee question concerning how
the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) would work with Port
MacKenzie, stated that the borough is a sponsor of a AMHS
smaller route to Port MacKenzie. Because of this, he stated
that the borough pursued a federal grant for marine highway
systems. He added that the grant program is meant for smaller
projects.
1:26:43 PM
MR. BROWN continued to slide 12 and gave a brief overview of
PMRE. He pointed out the project highlights, as seen on the
slide. He noted that the next presentation would cover the
funding needed for the project. He pointed out the 32-mile rail
extension project to Houston, which already has embankments
constructed for segments 1,3,4, and 5. He stated that all the
segments except segment 6 would require tracks, ties, and
ballasts. Concerning the challenges, he pointed out that the
funding for PMRE had stalled in 2015, adding that all the
funding had come from the state. He noted that [because of the
lack of funding] the project has been stalled for a number of
years, and now there is a focus of working toward completion.
He advised that using federal funding would "federalize" the
project, as a new Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be
required.
1:30:09 PM
MR. BROWN, in response to a committee question, stated that the
right of way for segment 2 has been completed, but there are
further issues that would have to be addressed in 2025 due to an
easement on Native lands. He stated that other than this all
the rights of way have been acquired, along with permits.
MR. BROWN, in response to a committee question concerning
maintaining the railroad once it is complete, stated that there
have been discussions about transferring the rights of way to
the Alaska Railroad Corporation upon completion; however, at
this point the borough has retained it. He stated that the
borough's retention would allow conversations on multiuse
corridors, but since the funding has stalled these conversations
have stalled. In response to a follow-up, he stated that the
railroad would go as far as Houston, where it would connect to
the mainline railroad. From this point the railroad goes north
to Fairbanks and south to Anchorage. In response, he asserted
that from the port, cargo could be moved through these routes.
1:33:58 PM
MR. BROWN moved to slides 13 and 14 and gave a brief overview of
land ownership in the Port MacKenzie and the West Susitna areas.
He noted that the Port District is zoned for industrial and
commercial usage, so the permitting is different than other
areas of the borough. He discussed that west of the Port
district is 700,000 acres, with 90 percent publicly owned,
predominately by the state. He argued that this is the one port
in Upper Cook Inlet that has access to both land and tidewater;
therefore, it holds potential and opportunity for the state.
MR. BROWN concluded on slide 15 and gave a summary of the key
takeaways, including Port Mackenzie's land and tidewater access,
community support, proximity to a workforce and infrastructure,
and location that is a transportation crossroads. He pointed
out that the port is set up for industrial and commercial
purposes. He discussed energy grants and tax credits from the
federal government, along with expressed interest from
international sources.
1:40:35 PM
MR. BROWN, in response to a committee question concerning the
advantages that Port MacKenzie has over the Port of Anchorage,
stated that this is not about competition. He expressed the
understanding that the goals for Port MacKenzie and the Port of
Anchorage are different, as Port MacKenzie is about creating
industrial and commercial resiliency. He reiterated that Port
MacKenzie is different because of its access to land.
MR. BROWN, in response to a committee question concerning EIS,
stated that he did not have this job when the EIS was completed;
however, he expressed the understanding that there was
mitigation done for the wetlands and retention for recreational
uses in the area. He stated that any disturbances were offset
with credits and procured as part of the project. In response
to a follow-up question concerning federalizing the project, he
expressed the understanding that the borough wants the project
completed, as the investment from the state has been large and
unrealized up to this point. He suggested that the project is
"not that far away" from being completed. He continued that the
borough is not opposed to the federal route, but the differences
would need to be made clear.
MR. BROWN, in response to a committee question concerning the
corridor that would be created by the project, pointed out that
natural gas transportation stops in the Houston area, and
currently there is not the capacity to extend this. He
suggested that the PMRE corridor could be used for a gas line.
He discussed how the corridor could be a multiuse utility
corridor with internet fiber, power, and natural gas.
CHAIR MCCABE commented that these corridors have been used in
other countries as multimodal corridors. He suggested that this
usage would be a way to create acceptance and funding.
1:48:15 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:48 p.m. to 1:53 p.m.
^PRESENTATION(S): EXPLORING THE FUTURE OF RAIL DEVELOPMENT:
VISION, PLANS, FEDERAL FUNDING, AND EFFICIENT FREIGHT
TRANSPORTATION AN IN-DEPTH DISCUSSION
PRESENTATION(S): EXPLORING THE FUTURE OF RAIL DEVELOPMENT:
VISION, PLANS, FEDERAL FUNDING, AND EFFICIENT FREIGHT
TRANSPORTATION AN IN-DEPTH DISCUSSION
1:53:36 PM
CHAIR MCCABE announced that the final order of business would be
a presentation by the Alaska Railroad Corporation.
1:54:26 PM
BILL O'LEARY, President and CEO, Alaska Railroad Corporation
(ARRC), co-presented a PowerPoint on the Alaska Railroad [hard
copy included in the committee packet]. On slide 2, he began
the presentation by stating that ARRC looks at the Port
MacKenzie Rail Extension (PMRE) and the Northern Rail Extension
(NRE) as critical economic development projects for the state.
He pointed out that Alaska is lacking in basic infrastructure,
especially concerning bringing stranded resources to market. He
expressed the understanding that ARRC is supportive of both of
these projects, as these support the mission of ARRC, which is
being an agent for economic development for the state. He
pointed out that both projects have laid fallow for 10 years.
From discussions with stakeholders, he expressed the
understanding that this is the time to move these projects
forward again. He stated that ARRC cannot do this on its own;
therefore, partnerships need to be discussed.
MR. O'LEARY moved to slide 3 and discussed railroad safety. On
slide 4, he pointed out the railroad's mission statement, with
the three priorities being safety, service, and profitability.
He moved to slide 5 and gave a brief overview of ARRC's
organization, operating statistics, operating data, and
employees. He discussed the federal government's role in the
beginning of the railroad. He remarked that the state bought
the railroad in 1985 from the federal government, and it was
setup as a state corporation. He stressed that ARRC's debts are
its own, and not debts of the state. He added that no general
funds go to the railroad, but there are still some requirements
by the state, such as reports.
2:06:05 PM
MR. O'LEARY, in response to a committee question, stated that no
tracks have been added to the railroad since the state took over
from the federal government.
MR. O'LEARY discussed the infrastructure that the railroad
provides to the state, which includes the freight and passenger
service and the rail freight link with barges. He moved to
slide 6 and pointed out the breakdown in its revenue sources,
and he pointed out that freight is the largest portion. He
discussed how the operating expenses are the basis for its
capital budget, as this is the one statistic which represents
how well the railroad is doing.
MR. O'LEARY, in response to a committee question concerning the
investment ARRC makes into its freight operations, stated that
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) formula monies can only
be applied to passenger services; therefore, internal funds go
to items that are not eligible for FTA funds, such as freight
and real estate. He added that because there is only a single
track, passenger tracks are maintained with FTA monies;
therefore, the freight services would indirectly benefit from
this. He expressed uncertainty concerning the split between
real estate and freight internal funding. In response to a
follow-up question concerning ARRC charging other state agencies
for land use, he stated that the model is for ARRC to be self-
sustaining. He stated that about half of its land is used in
its operations, while the other half would be available for
other uses, and this involves leases. He noted the difficulty
in running the railroad in the state, and having the land for
lease has been consistent revenue for ARRC, and this is often
used as a reinvestment into the railroad. He stated that due to
hard work, the railroad is now making money, unlike the past.
He reminded the committee that most other state-owned railroads
in the country receive state subsidies, while ARRC does not.
2:14:01 PM
BRIAN LINDAMOOD, Vice President and Chief Engineer, Alaska
Railroad Corporation, in further response to the committee
question, stated that currently ARRC is not directly charging
the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
for land usage outside of the rights of way. He explained that
there is a substantial amount of money that goes back and forth
between the agencies, but some of this is because of federal
requirements. In some projects, facilities are shared, and ARRC
is paid to do some of the work, but this could go both ways. He
added that DOT&PF has responsibility for some of the rail
crossings, and it pays ARRC to maintain these.
CHAIR MCCABE commented that the biggest complaint he has heard
about the railroad concerns the rights of way on state land and
the safety of some of these.
2:17:29 PM
MEGHAN CLEMENS, Director, External Affairs, Alaska Railroad
Corporation, co-presented the PowerPoint on the Alaska Railroad.
She moved to slide 8 through slide 10 and gave an overview of
the five-year capital investment plan. She stated that the plan
mostly consists of the maintenance and support of the
infrastructure. She focused on the bridge and track programs,
as these make up a large amount of the budget. She noted that
with the 100-year anniversary of the railroad, much of the
infrastructure is old, such as 100-year-old bridges. She said
that a $10 million plan will replace over 50 bridges over the
next 10 years. She noted the toll that environmental challenges
take on tracks. She noted that there are some grants that would
fund this maintenance.
MS. CLEMENS discussed the plans for the Whittier Terminal, the
Seward Freight Terminal, and the Seward Passenger Dock. She
pointed out that a grant has been designated for the Seward
Freight project. For the passenger dock, she noted that ARRC is
looking for additional funding to support this.
2:22:21 PM
MS. CLEMENS, in response to a committee question, affirmed that
ARRC owns the Seward Passenger Dock and there has already been a
$30 million bond passed for this.
MR. O'LEARY, in response, stated that two years ago ARRC sought
legislature authority to issue public debt, so at that point the
project was around $60 million; however, since this time there
has been a change of scope, and an additional bond authorization
would be required. In response to a follow-up question, he
stated that bonds would be used for very large projects. He
pointed out that no customers have been identified for the [Port
MacKenzie Rail Extension], so ARRC cannot justify building the
project.
MS. CLEMENS, in response to a committee question, stated that
PIDP stands for "Port Infrastructure Development Project" and
MARAD stands for "Maritime Administration." She added that
MARAD is federal. In response to a follow-up question, she
confirmed that ARRC can do MARAD funding because it owns the
Seward Passenger Dock.
2:26:50 PM
MS. CLEMENS continued to slide 11 and discussed ARRC's
competitive grant strategy. She reiterated that there are needs
associated with bridges, tracks, and facilities. Concerning
pursuing these projects, she stated that ARRC would first have
to ask whether it has the resources to pursue grants and meet
federal and nonfederal requirements. She addressed the cost-
benefit analysis when pursuing grants.
MS. CLEMENS continued to slide 12 which displayed a snapshot of
ARRC's activities concerning competitive grants for the last
five years. She pointed out that ARRC has been successful, as
it has secured over $46 million in federal funding during this
time frame. She pointed out the grants that had not been
awarded, which totaled around $41 million.
2:30:51 PM
MS. CLEMENS, in response to a committee question, stated that
all awarded grants must meet the benefits-cost analysis. She
noted that one benefit in this analysis includes the removal of
large-truck traffic from highways. The benefits would also
include emissions reduction, decreased wear on the roadways, and
increased quality of life in communities. She stated that this
is all part of the analysis.
MR. LINDAMOOD, in response to a committee question concerning
the federal government's metric, stated that ARRC uses the
return-on-investment metric like any business, while the federal
government uses the benefits-cost analysis. He stated that the
federal government would be looking at greater things other than
just return, such as impacts to economically disadvantaged
areas.
MR. O'LEARY, in response to a committee question concerning the
railroad being a monopoly, stated that the railroad does not
focus on maximizing profitability, but it focuses on being self-
sustaining. He expressed uncertainty about any areas where ARRC
would be a monopoly. He expressed the opinion that ARRC has
competition concerning freight, passengers, and real estate, and
this is considered in all its dealings.
MR. LINDAMOOD, in response to a committee question concerning
grants for PMRE, stated ARRC has been involved with this.
Concerning partnerships, he pointed out that the Matanuska-
Susitna Borough had put the grants together, while ARRC did
support work.
MR. O'LEARY stated that ARRC is ready to take the leadership
role and partnership role in working with the borough and
stakeholders to bring PMRE "across the finish line."
2:38:35 PM
MR. LINDAMOOD continued to slide 13, which addresses PMRE. He
stated that the Federal Surface Transportation Board has sole
discretion over rail extensions, and the borough has the
permits. He explained that the grants would go to the borough,
which would use ARRC as a contractor. He moved to slide 14 and
discussed PMRE project accounting. He moved to slide 15 and
discussed the project status, including roadbed preparation,
signal construction, facility construction, and track
construction. He discussed the funding needed to continue
construction, which includes the pursuit of the Build-Back-
Better Grant and legislative requests.
2:43:52 PM
MR. O'LEARY, in response to a committee question concerning PMRE
and the U.S. Department of Defense and other potential
customers, stated that in 2014 there was more interest. He
stated that now there is more interest from the energy sector
concerning liquified natural gas (LNG). He stated that there
has been a recent discussion with the military, but this was
related to the NRE project.
MR. LINDAMOOD, in response to a committee question concerning
steel to make rail, stated that this is relatively available.
MR. LINDAMOOD, in response to a committee question concerning
the progress of the project and how to explain the cost to
constituents, stated that the cost from 2012 to 2020 increased
around 30 percent, with another 30 percent increase from 2020 to
2023.
MR. O'LEARY, in response to a committee question, expressed the
opinion that the railroad does not have a monopoly because it
faces competition in every aspect of its business. He argued
that the vast majority of the customer interaction is through
contracts, and he expressed the understanding that the pricing
in these contracts reflect the model ARRC is working under.
MR. LINDAMOOD, in response to a committee question concerning
what recourse a municipality would have concerning crossing
contracts, stated that crossings are there for convenience, and
the crossing is maintained by the railroad. He stated that this
is billed per the cost incurred, and per any extra charges there
would be an advance notice. He discussed the safety issues and
costs incurred for this and the cost for upgrading parts.
MR. O'LEARY, in response to a committee question, expressed the
understanding that there have not been any studies on the
economic liability for PMRE.
CHAIR MCCABE commented that there are only four salt water ports
in the country that are not connected to a railroad. He argued
that if PMRE is built, more resources would be available, and
this would attract the customers.
MR. O'LEARY, in response to a previous question concerning who
the customers and partnerships are, stated that ARRC needs to
have partnerships with the borough and other businesses to have
a chance at "penciling out the benefit-cost analysis." He added
that this analysis would help procure the federal grant and this
would help provide the customers.
MR. LINDAMOOD, in response to a committee question on whether
the benefit-cost analysis is subjective, stated that for the
federal competitive grants, the federal government dictates what
is included in the benefit-cost analysis. He stated that a
contractor that is familiar with the requirements is generally
used.
MR. O'LEARY, in response to a committee question, expressed
uncertainty concerning how much of the freight revenue is from
military money. He stated that the military is a good customer
for ARRC.
3:02:00 PM
MR. LINDAMOOD, co-presenting the PowerPoint on the Alaska
Railroad, moved to slide 16 and slide 17, titled "Estimated Cost
to Complete." He stated that a third party was hired to
estimate the cost to finish the PMRE project. He discussed the
detailed list of costs, with the total of these costs resulting
in around $231 million. He pointed out that this cost is as of
today, but considering inflation and other factors, the project
would cost over $100 million more.
MR. LINDAMOOD, in response to a committee question, stated that
if the project takes three years to complete, the funding would
be divided by three, with each year needing funding.
MR. LINDAMOOD continued to slide 18 and discussed the Northern
Rail Extension (NRE) project. He explained that this project
was envisioned to expand military access. He went through the
timeline, as seen on slide 19. He pointed out that the project
was broken into phases as it grew. He moved to slide 20 and
discussed phase one, or the Tanana Bridge project, which
resulted in the longest bridge in the state. He stated that the
bridge was funded through the U.S. Department of Defense and
from state appropriations. The bridge was completed in 2014,
and it is used by the military.
MR. LINDAMOOD continued to slide 21 and discussed the next
phases after the Tanana Bridge. He stated that phase two would
entail moving the rail up to North Pole, phase three would
extend the rail to the Donnelly Training Area, and phase four
would go from Donnelly to Delta Junction. He discussed the
difference with PMRE and NRE, noting that PMRE does not need
additional federal evaluation, unless there are any potential
federal grants. However, he stated that NRE would likely need
multiple reevaluations from different agencies. He pointed out
that federal land ownership in the NRE project areas would need
to be addressed, and this could cause further delays. Once
challenges are addressed, he estimated that it would take five
years to build the NRE project.
MR. LINDAMOOD continued to slide 23 and stated that the NRE
budgetary estimate is around $1.7 billion. He noted that the
actual plans for the project are not complete, so these numbers
could vary.
3:13:11 PM
MS. CLEMENS continued to slide 24 and discussed the funding
strategies for PMRE. She noted that there has been no federal
funding for this project up to date, as federalizing the project
could bring some risks, such as time delays from reviewing EIS.
However, she pointed out that federal funds also bring benefits.
She gave details on the three potential funding sources for both
PMRE and NRE, as seen on the slide. She noted that each of
these have a 20 percent funding match.
3:17:03 PM
MS. CLEMENS, in response to a committee question concerning the
total grant amount possible, stated that to compare the total
amount with the total costs of the project, the timeframe would
need to be considered. She expressed the opinion that the idea
of receiving a lumpsum would be ambitious. She stated that this
is all in the discussion of what is available and supported with
nonfederal matches, as the larger the grant, the larger the
match would be.
MS. CLEMENS moved to slide 25 and discussed funding strategies
for NRE. She reiterated that the three grant opportunities seen
on the previous slide could be relevant for NRE. She suggested
that with the history of the military in this project, there
would be military grants available; however, she expressed the
opinion that there would not be a big ear mark like the one that
had come in the beginning of the project.
MR. O'LEARY, in response to a committee question concerning toll
roads, stated that ARRC is open to any funding ideas. He
discussed the needs for partnerships because ARRC's balance
sheet does not show any additional funding. He stated that at
this point ARRC is talking to "anybody and everybody about
this," as the commercial opportunities need to be understood.
He discussed the funding matches, reiterating the difference
between PMRE and NRE concerning federal funding.
MR. O'LEARY, in response to a committee question concerning
other aspects of the benefit-cost analysis, expressed support on
behalf of ARRC for the projects and the idea of building
infrastructure in the state. He pointed to the second bullet on
slide 27, which addresses balancing growth with the essential
maintenance of existing assets. He argued that much of the
economy in Alaska is stranded because of the lack of
infrastructure.
3:27:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK commented on the undeveloped resources in
the state, arguing that the state needs a vision.
MR. O'LEARY, in response to a committee question concerning
statutory requirements, stated that in the past there had been a
line on the very back page of the annual report outlining any
entities interested in purchasing the railroad. He expressed
the understanding that over the past 10 years there has not been
any discussion of this.
CHAIR MCCABE expressed the opinion that the unfinished railroad
projects are hurting Alaskans.
MR. LINDAMOOD, in response to a committee question, stated that
the military training grounds are all on federal lands.
3:36:18 PM
CHAIR MCCABE opened public testimony.
3:36:52 PM
ROBERT HALL, President, Houston Chamber of Commerce, gave public
testimony on the presentations. He expressed support of the
railroad projects on behalf of the Houston Chamber of Commerce.
He expressed the opinion that the key to economic success in the
state would be the ability to move goods and natural resources
to market. He stated that PMRE should be part of the state's
development for the next 100 years. He discussed the LNG
savings the extended rail to Fairbanks would create. He noted
that no industrial customers are coming forward; however, he
argued that currently there are many combined uses of the
railroad to justify the completion of these projects. He
expressed the importance of the committee meeting and pointed
out that the Alyeska pipeline was not built overnight.
3:39:56 PM
CHAIR MCCABE closed public testimony.
3:40:34 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:40
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| MSB.Port MacKenzie Rail Construction Status-Map-October 2023.Nov 20, 2023.pdf |
HTRA 11/20/2023 1:00:00 PM |
MSB.PMRE.ConstructionStatus |
| MSB.PortMacKenzie_AreaAccess.Nov 20, 2023.pdf |
HTRA 11/20/2023 1:00:00 PM |
PtMacAreaAccess.11.20.23 |
| MSB.Port MacKenzie Presentation.v1.Nov 20, 2023.1.pdf |
HTRA 11/20/2023 1:00:00 PM |
MSB.PtMacPresentation.11.20.23 |
| MSB.Port_Mac_LandOwnership.Nov 20, 2023.pdf |
HTRA 11/20/2023 1:00:00 PM |
MSB.PtMac.LandOwnership.11.20.23 |
| AKRR.HouseTransportation.Nov20, 2023..pdf |
HTRA 11/20/2023 1:00:00 PM |
AKRR.Presentation.11.20.23 |
| Western Canada Rail Expansion Options.11.20.23.pdf |
HTRA 11/20/2023 1:00:00 PM |
W.Canada.Rail.Expansion.Options |
| Sen.Murkowski.IIJA.PR.11.20.23.pdf |
HTRA 11/20/2023 1:00:00 PM |
Sen.Murkowski.IIJA.PR.11.20.23 |
| Sen.MurkowskiOp.Ed.11.20.23.pdf |
HTRA 11/20/2023 1:00:00 PM |
Sen.Murkowski.Op.Ed.11.20.23 |
| FRA.GrantProgramSheetandDeadlines.11.20.23.pdf |
HTRA 11/20/2023 1:00:00 PM |
FRA.Grants.11.20.23 |
| SupportingDocs.11.18.23.pdf |
HTRA 11/20/2023 1:00:00 PM |
Supporting.Docs.11.20.23 |