Legislature(2023 - 2024)BUTROVICH 205
04/11/2024 01:30 PM Senate 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): Statewide Transportation Improvement Program Approval Update | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
April 11, 2024
1:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator James Kaufman, Chair
Senator David Wilson, Vice Chair
Senator Löki Tobin
Senator Jesse Kiehl
Senator Robert Myers
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
SENATOR BJORKMAN
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
APPROVAL UPDATE
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
RYAN ANDERSON, Commissioner
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) Approval Update.
KATHERINE KEITH, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a portion of the Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Approval Update.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:32:23 PM
CHAIR JAMES KAUFMAN called the Senate Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Myers, Wilson, Kiehl, and Chair Kaufman.
Senator Tobin arrived thereafter.
1:33:05 PM
CHAIR KAUFMAN announced that the agenda would consist of a
presentation by Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (DOTPF) on the Statewide Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) Approval Update.
1:34:00 PM
SENATOR TOBIN arrived.
^PRESENTATION(S): STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
APPROVAL UPDATE
PRESENTATION(S): STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
APPROVAL UPDATE
1:34:05 PM
RYAN ANDERSON, Commissioner, Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities (DOTPF), Juneau, Alaska, presented the
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Approval
Update. He thanked the committee for the opportunity to provide
another update to the STIP and said the presentation would also
allow Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF)
to answer questions about the status of project delivery. He
noted the STIP is key to the state's surface transportation
program and the funds that are obligated to construct projects
on the highways and the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS). He
gave an overview of current funds obligated and awarded in
Fiscal Year 24 compared with Fiscal Year 23. He observed that
expenditures are about $30 million less for Fiscal Year 24 than
for Fiscal Year 23. He said that, though the STIP has been
delayed, DOTPF was moving forward and awarding projects.
1:36:04 PM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON moved to slide 2 and paraphrased the
presentation points. Slide 2 includes a timeline titled: E-STP
and STIP Development, dated December 2021 through March 2024.
[Original punctuation provided.]
2024-2027 STIP Review
STIP Submission Dates
• Jul. 20, 2023: DOT&PF posts the 2027-2027 Draft STIP
• Nov. 2023: Revised 2024-2027 STIP to FHWA and FTA
• Jan. 11, 2024: Revised 2024-2027 STIP to FHWA and
FTA
• Jan. 19, 2024: Revised 2024-2027 STIP to FHWA and
FTA
• Mar. 1, 2024: Revised 2024-2027 STIP to FHWA and FTA
Legislative Briefings
• Feb. 13, 2024: House Transportation
• Feb. 22, 2024: Senate Transportation
• Feb. 28, 2024: Senate Finance
• Feb. 28, 2024: House Finance
• Feb. 29, 2024: House Transportation
Summary of FHWA Correspondence
• Feb. 12, 2024: DOT&PF receives planning findings
from FHWA with a deadline of March 1, 2024.
• Feb. 16, 2024: DOT&PF sends clarification and
questions to FHWA regarding Tier 1 Findings.
• Feb. 20, 2024: FHWA responds to DOT&PF questions.
• Feb. 22, 2024: DOT&PF sends questions to FHWA
focused on MPOs, fiscal constraint, Appendix D.
• Feb. 23, 2024: FHWA responds to the February 22
letter.
• Feb. 27, 2024: DOT&PF sends a listing of replacement
projects for FHWA eligibility review.
• Feb. 29, 2024: FHWA responds to the project listing
request.
• Mar. 27, 2024: FHWA grants partial approval of the
STIP.
• Mar. 27, 2024: DOT&PF follows up with FHWA regarding
toll credits.
1:37:35 PM
SENATOR TOBIN asked how the current STIP submission dates
compare to previous submissions. She further asked whether the
same submission timeline and process were being followed and
whether there were delays or dynamics that differed from
previous STIP submissions.
1:38:10 PM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON answered that the STIP was submitted for
public notice late due to problems with E-STIP. He said there
was an enormous volume of response to the public notice
requiring significantly more time and multiple levels of
communication to respond than in past STIPs. Beginning in
February 2024, when the formal findings were received, he
reported that DOTPF began communicating by more formal, written
means to answer questions and convey progress on the STIP He
noted that there was more time involved in the STIP process than
previously.
1:39:36 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether there were shifts in personnel
organization to do the work of preparing the STIP.
1:40:11 PM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON referred to the timeline and noted the
length of the STIP development: December 2021 through April 2023
and said staff were working on E-STIP, the new way to develop
the STIP. He said that team was composed of people from the
regions and project delivery people to work through all the
details. At that point, it was determined that E-STIP wouldn't
work; the developers switched to a new platform to prepare for
the public notice. A team was developed to rebuild the STIP,
composed of thirty to forty people, with a more agile
methodology. He described the method as small teams tied to
other teams to address different aspects of the STIP that had to
come together. He said the Commissioner's office oversaw the
development from that point, and that each team or region
focused on its part. He said there is a list of everyone that
was involved.
1:42:31 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked how the roles of the most experienced DOTPF
staff in the regions and in statewide planning shifted.
1:42:59 PM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON said if there was a shift in roles it was
a shift in ways of working. He said DOTPF values everyone and
their expertise and wanted to make the most of that. He said
there was recognition of a large technological component, as
well as the planning and regional expertise to capture while
tackling challenges with fiscal constraint. He said project
costs had risen, there was the over-programmed STIP and
decisions were made at a higher level in terms of project
delivery schedule, which projects would move forward and how,
within the fiscal constraints. He characterized the changes for
personnel as a change in the ways of working together rather
than a change in roles.
1:44:16 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether DOTPF would use the same
organization and methodology for working together on a future
STIP.
1:44:42 PM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON said that the construct of building teams
and working together in a way that the boundaries of different
divisions didn't matter as much; and in which people can work
across those boundaries will be the way to go in the future. He
said that he would handle communications with the Federal
Highway Administration differently. He noted that the effort to
clearly communicate with them in February and March and that it
would optimally have happened earlier in the process, for
example September through November, and the result, he opined,
would have improved the process.
1:45:41 PM
SENATOR TOBIN requested an amendment to the [STIP] review
specifying how often and when DOTPF communicated with the
Municipal Planning Organizations (MPO's). She noted significant
early feedback indicating they didn't feel included in the STIP
creation and dialogue. She noted similar concerns expressed
regarding tribal consultation and said these things need to be
addressed before moving forward with conditional approval of the
STIP.
1:46:33 PM
CHAIR KAUFMAN concurred, noting the volume of concern expressed
by people about being left out of the STIP creation process. He
said there appeared to be a significant deviation from past
processes and stakeholder engagement, both internal and external
to DOTPF. He urged that improvements be made. He said avoiding
similar situations in the future would be a high priority. He
expressed his expectation that this would be addressed as the
presentation continued.
1:47:59 PM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON indicated he was aware of the concerns. He
said a great team of DOTPF people spent a lot of hours to go
above and beyond to resolve the STIP. He emphasized that he does
take it seriously and ensured that a later slide in the
presentation would address proposed solutions.
1:48:38 PM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON moved to slide 3:
[Original punctuation provided.]
2024-2027 STIP FHWA Tiered Approach
Federal Planning Findings Overview
The Federal Planning Finding is structured into three
distinct tiers, each with its own set of conditions
and requirements for resolving Federal actions.
Tier Classification and Conditions
Tier 1: Contains conditions that have been resolved
for approval and identifies elements excluded from
approval.
Tier 2: Lists updated conditions for amendment
approval.
Tier 3: Specifies updated conditions for individual
project approvals.
Corrective Actions - Tier 1
•Tier 1, Finding 1: MPO and Other Transportation
Improvement Programs
•Tier 1, Finding 2: Project Groupings •Tier 1, Finding
3: Fiscal Constraint
•Tier 1, Finding 4: STIP Amendment and Modifications
Corrective action
•Tier 1, Finding 5: Self Certifications, Federal
Findings, and Federal Approvals
1:50:03 PM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON moved to slide 4:
[Original punctuation provided.]
2024-2027 STIP Narrative Changes
STIP Revision Process
TIER 1: 23 CFR 450.218(P) STIP AMENDMENT AND
MODIFICATIONS
Removed Section: The "Updates that Do Not Require a
STIP Change" has been removed from documentation.
Review and Approval Process: Details on FHWA and FTA
review and approval timelines and processes have been
eliminated from the STIP content
Maintenance and Operations of the Transportation
System
TIER 2: 23 CFR 450.218(Q) TRANSPORTATION PERFORMANCE
MANAGEMENT (TPM) AND 23 CFR 450.206(C) PERFORMANCE-
BASED PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING
Expanded STIP Narrative: Included detailed
explanations to demonstrate fiscal constraint.
Appendix C Enhancements: Clarified how maintenance
and operational needs are determined.
Measures and Targets: Discussed measures and targets
related to maintenance and operational needs.
Historical Performance: Illustrated DOT&PF's track
record in meeting maintenance and operational needs.
Funding Process Explanation: Outlined how needs are
financially supported.
Investment Balance: Provided insight on balancing
capital investments with ongoing maintenance costs.
Project Sheets Update: Revised to feature relevant
performance factors for individual projects.
1:52:52 PM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON moved to slide 5:
[Original punctuation provided.]
2024-2027 STIP Narrative Changes
Funding and Fiscal Constraint
Tier 1: 23 CFR 450.218(m) Fiscal Constraint
State Funding: Updated Appendix C with more
information on state funding availability.
Funding and Fiscal Constraint Discussion: Enhanced
with further details on the use of Advance
Construction.
FHWA Discretionary Grants
Tier 1: 23 CFR 450.218(m) Fiscal Constraint
Detailed Financial Overview: Includes descriptions of
federal grant programs.
FTA Funds: Features a dedicated section on FTA fund
sources within the financial overview.
Public Involvement Process
Tier 2: 23 CFR 450.210 Interested Parties, Public
Involvement, and Consultation
Enhanced Public Involvement Section: Now includes
detailed information on tribal consultation processes
within the STIP.
Integration of Tribal Programs: The Tribal
Transportation Improvement Programs are now
incorporated by reference in the STIP.
Federal Lands Management Inclusion: Federal Lands
Management Agency Transportation Improvement Program
is also integrated by reference.
1:53:00 PM
SENATOR BJORKMAN joined the meeting.
1:54:02 PM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON moved to slide 6:
[Original punctuation provided.]
2024-2027 STIP Appendices Changes
Appendix C: Transportation Performance Management
Analysis
Maintenance and Operations Needs and Investments.
Additional Information included on State funding
sources, and overall maintenance and operations
activities.
Appendix D: Air Quality Conformance Analysis
Revisions address Jan. 4 Fairbanks Metropolitan
Planning Area Non-Attainment Area
• The Air Quality Conformity status of the Fairbanks
North Star Borough and the impacts to the TIP and STIP
that result from this condition are documented in
Appendix D: Air Quality Conformity Analysis.
• The projects in Appendix C, Table C of the Federal
Planning Finding have been removed, and no additional
projects within the Fairbanks North Star Borough
nonattainment/maintenance area have been added to the
STIP.
Appendix E: Fiscal Constraint Demonstration By Fund
Type
Changes to address MPO funding and removal of programs
and projects. Ledgers are included to reflect
allocations of funds for projects and programs not in
the STIP
1:55:21 PM
KATHERINE KEITH, Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF), Anchorage, Alaska,
moved to slide 7 and said it was her intent to walk through some
of the federal planning findings that DOTPF received from the
Federal Highway Administration with the partial approval of the
STIP. She expressed delight on behalf of DOTPF with the progress
on the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). She
said the accomplishments of the teams to connect disparate data
sets, compile them in one location and provide for public access
to and interaction with the data was phenomenal. She said the
work also highlighted areas for improvement, for example project
delivery and planning. The process of creating the current STIP
provided for new ways to look at programming for the STIP and
she expressed confidence that DOTPF had taken full advantage of
that opportunity. She said when DOTPF began working on the STIP,
the Federal Highways Administration did not have a planner with
whom DOTPF could work. She said a federal planner was brought in
from national headquarters. The STIP process benefitted from
fresh eyes that allowed forward progress aligned with the
Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit
Authority. She said DOTPF appreciated the opportunity to be
fully compliant with all their processes.
[Original punctuation provided.]
2024-2027 STIP Volume 1: Project Details
Tier 1, Finding 1: MPO and Other Transportation
Improvement Programs
(References Appendix A) 23 CFR 450.218(b) and (k)
Excluded in Partial Approval
#34374 - Railroad Anchorage North & South Rail
Corridor
#26076 - Aurora Drive-Noyes Slough Bridge Replacement
#34385 - Port of Alaska North Extension Stabilization
Step 1 Project
[Slide 7 includes a table listing programs included in
Tier 1, Finding 1 and an image of the 2024-20267 STIP
Table of Contents]
1:57:06 PM
CHAIR KAUFMAN asked about the level of engagement between the
Federal Highway Administration and DOTPF. He specifically asked
whether meetings began early enough [in the process], occurred
often enough and were on task.
1:57:44 PM
MS. KEITH replied that when DOTPF was in the throes of working
with many dynamic changes within the STIP, no level of
engagement with the federal office could be enough. She said the
Federal Highway Administration in Alaska was not fully staffed
and it was a small office, around 12 people, with a lot of work
to do. She said bringing in extra resources was critical. She
described DOTPF as a staff of over three thousand and said there
was a tremendous amount of detail to go through. She expressed
appreciation for the level of engagement between DOTPF and the
Federal Highway Administration and said more engagement is
needed to help DOTPF understand better. She said having things
formally in writing was helpful. She reported that for years,
DOTPF thought they were doing things the right way and just kept
doing it that way, but there were other ways of looking at it
and doing it that DOTPF hadn't done before and that they could
improve.
1:58:56 PM
CHAIR KAUFMAN asked whether there were changes in the work
process with respect to the federal interface or with the
interpretation of technical requirements.
1:59:05 PM
MS. KEITH responded that it was both. She offered as an example
overprogramming the STIP. She said it had been DOTPF's
historical practice to over program each year, so that, as
things slipped, there would be enough projects programmed and
budgeted for that year that it wouldn't be necessary to go back
and make an amendment [to the STIP]. She said the STIP
originally included programming for over $3.5 billion for 2024.
There wasn't that much revenue, so programming needed to be
reduced to $1 billion. She emphasized the time and effort
required to cut the programming from $3.5 billion to $1 billion.
This represented significant new learning for DOTPF regarding
the expectations of the Federal Highway Administration.
2:00:16 PM
CHAIR KAUFMAN pointed out that the documents filed online said
they were pending approval. He asked whether that was the
reality or a matter of the posting not being up to date.
MS. KEITH affirmed that approval was still pending. She said
that DOTPF was working to repackage the PDF documents and
uploading the new digital capital project modules to clearly
communicate to the public what had been approved and was moving
forward versus what was part of the partial approval. She
anticipated posting a formal document online.
2:01:00 PM
CHAIR KAUFMAN requested a timeline for the formal document.
MS. KEITH said the document would be complete that week.
CHAIR KAUFMAN commented that was not much time.
MS. KEITH explained there would be a presentation later that day
which would include [Quick Response] QR codes that were not
ready to share for this meeting. She said she would share them
with the committee right away.
2:01:32 PM
MS. KEITH continued to paraphrase slide 7. She pointed out the
list of projects for the Anchorage Metropolitan Area
Transportation Solutions (AMATS), Fairbanks Area Surface
Transportation (FAST) and the Metropolitan/Municipal Planning
Organizations (MPOs). She said the details for the listed
projects were included in the STIP and had been included in past
STIPs. She said that in order to solely incorporate the
Transportation Improvement Projects (TIPs) by reference, they
have been fully removed from the STIP. She said DOTPF is working
together with AMATS and FAST and Mat-Su Valley Planning for
Transportation (MVP) to understand how to move forward in the
absence of STIP ID's which they used to use to program their
projects, and which no longer exist. This requires that DOTPF
redefine how they work together with the MPO's and how they
program and obligate projects. As part of their planning
findings, she said there were six items that were excluded from
approval:
• two of them were discretionary grant awards and she said
they aren't projects DOTPF would operate anyway
• two of the projects were advanced construction conversions
which means they were obligated in previous years and it's
a financial transaction to pay back that a/c [account
current] balance
She sought to clarify that the projects listed on slide 7 are in
that category and don't affect DOTPFs program over the next four
years.
2:02:54 PM
CHAIR KAUFMAN sought clarification regarding the Port of Alaska.
He asked whether that project was included as an exclusion
because the work was already underway.
2:03:15 PM
MS. KEITH explained that the Federal Highways Administration
instructed DOTPF to exclude [the Port of Alaska project] because
it was already within the Anchorage AMATS planning boundary.
[Federal Highways Administration] requested that the Port [of
Alaska] and the municipality of Anchorage work first to get
these discretionary grants included in the TIP and then they
would be incorporated by reference. She said DOTPF was eager to
get discretionary grant awards listed as soon as possible to
avoid delays in grant agreements with the applicable federal
agencies. She explained that there were two new federal agencies
for funding within the state. One of the projects was from the
Maritime Administration (MARAD) and one was from the Federal
Rail Association (FRA). She said DOTPF was learning what the
requirements of these agencies were to go to grant award. She
said a number of the projects listed for information purposes
were from external funding sources like that. She explained that
DOTPF was required by regulation to include all regionally
significant projects.
2:04:19 PM
CHAIR KAUFMAN asked whether these projects would all get bundled
into the over programming that was discussed earlier.
2:04:28 PM
MS. KEITH said they would not. She said the fiscal constraint as
far as Federal Highways Administration (FHA) and Federal Transit
Authority (FTA) was concerned only took into account the formula
funding or funds that were used toward projects. She said DOTPF
was asked to account by fund and by year for each of those
projects, but discretionary grants, especially those awarded to
external agencies have not been a part of that accounting. She
said that for this STIP, FHA and FTA did want DOTPF to show the
funding source with discretionary grants, where they came from
and that the state had the match for the grants so there was a
different way of showing the fiscal constraints for
discretionary grants that are not awarded to DOTPF.
2:05:20 PM
CHAIR KAUFMAN recalled that the Delta was $2.5 billion. He asked
whether the Delta project was part of the overprogramming.
2:05:40 PM
MS. KEITH explained that those were not discretionary grant
applications. She said programming a significant amount of
discretionary grants into the STIP is relatively new to DOTPF as
part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. She explained that
learning what the federal agencies requested and programming the
STIP with those expectations was new, but that the discretionary
grant funding had not been programmed into the E-STIP, so it was
not part of the overprogramming.
2:06:18 PM
MS. KEITH moved to slide 8 and said these examples were part of
what had been resolved as part of DOTPF's project planning
findings. She said these were things that had historically been
included in the STIP but will no longer be. DOTPF had been
instructed by FHA to remove the "programs" and instead list
"projects" that had been specifically funded. She said the
partially approved updated STIP will show a significant number
of new projects which have been awarded.
[Original punctuation provided.]
2024-2027 STIP Volume 1: Project Details
Tier 1: Finding 2: Project Groupings (References
Appendix B) 23 CFR 450.218(j)
Grouping Removal: Majority of program groupings have
been eliminated from the STIP.
Revenue Reallocation: Funds from former groupings have
been redistributed to specific DOT&PF-led projects and
programs.
Appendix B - Project Groupings
The following project groupings must include project
description, including project location, type of work,
termini, etc., to be included in the STIP. If any work
occurs within an MPO boundary, it must first be
included in the MPO's TIP before being included in the
STIP by reference.
[Slide 8 includes a table of programs which are now
expressed as projects in the STIP, Tier 1, Finding 2.]
2:07:54 PM
MS. KEITH moved to slide 9 and pointed out that several of the
items in the table had been resolved and that some of them had
been moved to Tier #3, which means that, as DOTPF goes to
obligate these projects and move them forward, details specific
to the projects will have to be worked out. She pointed out the
ferry boat toll credits and characterized this item as an
innovative finance opportunity. With FHA approval, DOTPF will be
able to apply these federal funds as a match for the federal
transit grant awards. She said there were a number of Alaska
Marine Highway System (AMHS) projects on the list and they have
all been approved for leveraging the toll credits. The STIP will
show the number of toll credits that will be applied to the AMHS
projects as well as the federal fund source that is being used
as match funds for the grant award. She credited Washington
State DOT as the origin of this way of looking at toll credits.
She continued to explain that in 2025 and 2027, FHA has
instructed DOTPF to wait until they have identified projects to
apply the ferry toll credits to, instead of using placeholders.
[Original punctuation provided.]
2024-2027 STIP Volume 1: Project Details
Teir 1, Finding 3: Fiscal Constraint (References
Appendix D) 23 CFR 450.218(m)
Tier 3 Project Discussions: Projects like the Cascade
Point Ferry Terminal and Shishmaref Sanitation Road
Erosion Control are now listed under Tier 3 due to
ongoing discussions.
Toll Credits: The process for approving Ferry Boat
Funds as Toll Credits is carried out separately and
distinctly.
Approved Projects Leveraging Toll Credits:
• M/V Tustumena Replacement Vessel
• Low No Emission Shuttle Ferry
• M/V Matanuska Safety Improvement Project
• M/V Tazlina Crew Quarters
• Yakutat Ferry Terminal Reconstruction
• Pelican Ferry Terminal Reconstruction
• M/V Kennicott Emissions and Exhaust
• M/V Columbia Controllable Pitch Propeller
• Auke Bay Ferry Terminal East Berth Mooring
Rehabilitation
• M/V Mainliner Replacement Vessel
• Kake Ferry Terminal Rehabilitation
• Angoon AMHS Ferry Terminal Rehabilitation
Excluded Projects Leveraging Toll Credits:
• STIP ID 34205 "Ferry Boat Funds as Toll Credits"
will be replaced with project specific
information once identified.
Appendix D - Ineligible Projects
The following projects appear to be ineligible for
inclusion into the STIP for the reasons shown for each
specific project. These projects must be removed from
the STIP.
[Slide 9 includes Table D-1: Resolution status from
January 2024 STIP Submittal]
2:09:54 PM
MS. KEITH moved to slide 10 and said there was one program that
DOTPF was working on with FHA and would like to get back into
the STIP as soon as possible. She said a bridge and tunnel
inventory will provide a fund for inventory of bridges and
tunnels, inspections and also for rehabilitations and
replacements, especially when sudden situations or emergencies
arise. She said there were several fund sources for the bridge
and tunnel program, including National Highway system funding,
surface transportation block grant funding, and bridge
improvement performance funding. She said those funds would
typically be used to replace bridges and that they would usually
break this program out into projects and apply funding
appropriate to each project. She said FHA did allow for this
item to be excluded from the STIP until details can be worked
out.
[Original punctuation provided.]
2024-2027 STIP Volume 1: Project Details
Tier 1, Finding 3: Fiscal Constraint (Reference
Appendix D) 23 CFR 450.218(m)
Outstanding Items
• Bridge and Tunnel Inventory Work
• Bridge Scour Monitoring and Retrofit
• State Owned Shipyard Repairs
[Slide 10 includes a Table lising Items from Tier 1,
Finding 3 of the STIP review.
2:11:06 PM
CHAIR KAUFMAN asked whether part of the challenge with this
planning cycle was that the federal agencies were trying to
designate funds for specific projects and prevent the movement
of money between projects.
2:11:30 PM
MS. KEITH concurred and said that DOTPF has preferred to use
programs because of flexibility. She said the ability to move
money around within a program allowed planners to be agile and
meet needs without necessitating amendments from year to year.
However, she said it is clear to DOTPF that FHA and FTA would
prefer the planning be as specific [to projects] as possible.
The federal agencies made it clear they were not opposed to
programs and they encouraged DOTPF to leverage programs where
appropriate. She said examples of programs that remained in the
STIP were the Highway Safety Improvement Program and the Bridge
Preservation Program. She said it was very important for DOTPF
to be clear in the scope, location, and the project types in
order to clearly satisfy the regulations.
2:12:28 PM
CHAIR KAUFMAN shared his impression that DOTPF is under pressure
by the federal agencies to provide a high degree of specific
detail for individual projects and phases of projects.
2:12:52 PM
MS. KEITH concurred and said that with the change in amendment
revision procedures, DOTPF will have to be extra cautious with
cost estimates. She said the final version of the STIP submitted
to FHA included cost estimates for construction and
preconstruction, inflation for year of expenditure, and up to
date estimates on file and available for verification. She said
DOTPF is aware that they will have to be vigilant and careful to
provide up to date estimates for every amendment in order to
complete the work they committed to do.
2:13:35 PM
CHAIR KAUFMAN asked whether there was a hard limit on the amount
of funding available. He wondered whether there would be any
flexibility for expenditure.
2:13:51 PM
MS. KEITH affirmed that there is a hard limit. She said the
limit depends on the dollar amount of a project. She said the
cost could go up to 20 percent over total cost of a whole
project, but that if the cost exceeds 20 percent, DOTPF must
process an amendment. She said there were several thresholds to
be met.
2:14:28 PM
CHAIR KAUFMAN asked how all of this would affect engagement with
stakeholders. He wondered if the decreased ability to flex and
move money around among projects would change the interface with
stakeholders.
2:14:55 PM
MS. KEITH said it had been a strong priority of DOTPF to be
transparent about projects and their progress. She commended the
Data Modernization and Innovation office for the tools they
created, and she highlighted the 2024 GIS platform, named APEX
which, she said, detailed where current construction projects
were taking place. She said there were several comment portals
and improvements to engagement with the public and that there
would be more emphasis on continual public commentary over
public comment periods. She anticipated using tools like those
used by the MPOs to allow more overlap in project information.
She looked forward to taking a proactive approach to changes.
She mentioned the possibility of moving toward a rolling STIP
which would allow for updates every year and plenty of
opportunities for the public to offer input on the progress of
projects and any changes that have happened.
2:16:15 PM
SENATOR TOBIN recalled a recent in-person opportunity to gather
and share perspectives and information about a common
interest/concern. She said it was well-attended and allowed for
real people to offer perspectives, ask questions and really dig
in. She encouraged DOTPF not to rely too heavily on on-line
participation and comments from the public. She acknowledged the
significant shift in the process for developing the STIP. She
asked whether other states were also facing similar challenges
and changes regarding the development of their STIPs.
2:17:38 PM
MS. KEITH said there were upcoming conferences with other
states' DOTs to get together and learn from one another. She
said she was looking forward to the opportunity to define some
best practices and understand the experience of other states.
She said DOTPF did review the other states' documentation,
practices and methods of public engagement. She asserted that
the detail of the work is much greater than before. She said she
did not see that volume of work at the other states.
2:18:36 PM
SENATOR TOBIN asked how many other states' STIPs were rejected.
2:18:40 PM
MS. KEITH said she couldn't answer the question and that DOTPF
had not found an example.
2:18:51 PM
SENATOR TOBIN restated the response for clarification by saying
we know of no other states who had their STIP rejected.
2:18:53 PM
MS. KEITH agreed. She moved to slide 11 and explained one of the
deep-dive STIP pages. She emphasized the depth of detail
available for the public on each of these project pages, the
details of planning and expenditure for all phases of the
project are included and that this information is available to
the public for all STIP projects. She said descriptions of the
original plus current conditions are available as well as
descriptions of what is expected once a project is complete. She
said this information is directly tied to the four-year
infrastructure plan and to the transportation asset management
system, allowing DOTPF to quantify the benefit of the projects,
demonstrate maintenance and operations expenditures and show
where the system should be because of the federal investments.
She said there could be confusion for the public looking at
these pages because DOTPF was instructed to separate projects
that were previously grouped together as corridor projects or as
projects that had several construction phases and costs over
several years. She said the scope and complexity of a project,
the volume of information and the phases and stages of progress
included in these pages result in a lot of information.
[Original punctuation provided.]
2024-2027 STIP Volume 1: Project Details
Tier 1, Finding 3: Fiscal Constraint (Refences
Appendix D) 23 CFR 450.218(m)
Modified Deep-Dives now include:
• Advance Construction Conversion (ACC): Conversion
details added for obligation
• Project Estimates: Adjusted for the year of
expenditure
• Asset Management Metrics: Included when available
Previous Obligations: Documented and reviewed
• Project Score: Applied if applicable
• STIP ID Connections: Details on parent/child
relationships
Slide 11 contains multiple tables to express an
example of a "Deep-Dive" project plan in detail. The
project chosen for this example is: Knik Goose Bay
Road Reconstruction: Fairview Loop to Settler's Bay
(Parent and Final Construction)
2:21:34 PM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON moved to slide 12. He said DOTPF was
instructed to remove all the projects from the Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) that were already
included in the Fairbanks Area Surface Transportation (FAST)
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). DOTPF was to rely on
the FAST Municipal/Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)s TIP
for the identification and the obligation of the listed
projects. He reported that this led to discussion and
controversy in Fairbanks as many of the projects that were in
the STIP were not in the TIP, because in the past, that was not
the way they had done things. He explained that because
Fairbanks was experiencing an Air Quality conformance freeze,
FAST didn't have the opportunity to add projects back into their
TIP. He said the result was that a significant number of
previously funded projects were no longer included in a funding
plan. He mentioned several projects that had to be removed from
the STIP and said DOTPF and other stakeholders were working on
the projects one at a time to get them back into the MPO's TIP
or the STIP.
[Original punctuation provided.]
2024-2027 STIP Volume 1: Project Details
Tier 1, Finding 5: Air Quality Conformity, Self-
certification, Federal Findings and Federal Approvals.
23 CFR 450.220/23 CFR 450(a)(7)
• Project Adjustments: Projects within the Particulate
Matter (PM) 2.5 Non-Attainment Area have been removed.
• Interagency Consultations: Consultations completed for
Richardson Highway Milepost 346 Chena Bridges
Replacement.
• Amendment Process: The Chena Bridges Replacement will
be addressed in an upcoming amendment.
Appendix C - Projects Requiring Interagency
Consultation
Due to the Conformity Freeze for the Fairbanks North
Star Air Quality Non-attainment area, the following
projects must first be reviewed by the Fairbanks North
Star Interagency Consultation process prior to
inclusion in the TIP or STIP listed in the Table.
These must be removed from the STIP.
[Table C lists items addressed by Tier 1, Finding 5 of
the STIP review.]
2:24:09 PM
SENATOR TOBIN said she had heard it was not typical practice to
require projects to be included in a TIP prior to including them
in the STIP. She asked when that guidance from the federal
agencies changed.
2:24:30 PM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON said DOTPF initially understood that a
project had to be in an MPOs TIP prior to inclusion in the STIP.
The first STIP submittal that was rejected included projects
that were also included in TIPs; and it did not include projects
that were not also in a TIP. That was when it was understood by
DOTPF that none of the projects included in the STIP should also
be in a TIP. He acknowledged the misunderstanding created some
tough situations.
2:25:39 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked about the exclusion of charging stations at
the international airports. He said it seemed backwards that
concerns about air quality would lead to barriers to conversion
to electric vehicles.
2:26:01 PM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON said the Federal Highway Administration is
focused on process and that process drives decisions. He opined
that the decision wasn't targeted [against the charging
stations], but that the emphasis on process led to an
indiscriminate decision.
2:26:25 PM
SENATOR KIEHL expressed confusion. He said his prior
understanding had been that the STIP and whatever the MPO
produced must match. But what he heard today is that DOTPF can't
include anything in the STIP that is in the MPOs TIP. He said he
must have missed something.
2:26:46 PM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON said DOTPF would be moving forward in such
a way that the STIP will identify MPO national highway system
projects, for example. DOTPF will call these "ledgers," not
"projects". The ledger will only include a [dollar] amount to
ensure that the STIP is fiscally constrained within the MPO. He
said the ledger will be the only information [related to a
project] included in the STIP. Detailed information about those
projects will have to be obtained through the MPO. When DOTPF
moves to obligate a project, they will refer to the MPO's TIP,
not the STIP.
2:27:41 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked, then, if the new process could be likened
to adopting a municipal document by reference.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON concurred.
SENATOR KIEHL continued to ask, for the projects within the
Fairbanks area that didn't match [between the MPOs TIP and the
STIP], whether the problem was that they didn't match or with
how they were listed.
2:28:07 PM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON said the problem was that what was in
DOTPF's STIP didn't match what was in the MPOs TIP. He said lags
in reporting between DOTPF and the MPO contributed to the
problem and that the [air quality] conformity freeze
unfortunately locked everything in.
2:28:45 PM
SENATOR TOBIN referred to the Safer Seward Highway project which
was included in the STIP; and was not part of the TIP. She said
there was a good deal of confusion and consternation about it.
She understood that the solution was for the STIP to carve out
this section. She expressed confusion and asked whether this
action resulted from a change in regulation or a change in
guidance and when DOTPF learned that the STIP must be
constructed this way.
2:29:27 PM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON said the Seward Highway Project was a
great example [of the misunderstanding between DOTPF and the
federal agencies]. He said that project was in the Anchorage
Metropolitan Area Transportation System (AMATS) Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). The first STIP submitted by DOTPF
also included the Seward Highway Project. When DOTPF received
the planning findings, they discovered that if the project was
included in the MPOs TIP, it could not also be in DOTPFs STIP.
That first formal STIP submittal to result in planning findings
was what first made the misunderstanding clear to DOTPF.
2:30:25 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether the decision for DOTPF to develop a
rolling STIP would necessitate that the three local MPOs also
develop rolling TIPs to avoid mismatches or timing problems. He
asked whether the MPOs were prepared to do that and whether
DOTPF had worked with the MPOs to make that shift.
2:30:59 PM
MS. KEITH said DOTPF was working with the MPOs on a process to
simplify some of the back-and-forth work. She said DOTPF was
using a cloud-based system for project data that was easy to
share with the MPO partners. She emphasized that they were all
still learning what it would take for the MPOs to achieve their
first [successful] amendment. She said the Anchorage MPO, AMATS,
was ready to submit its second amendment on its current TIP
document, but that AMATS was not certain whether the amendment
would be accepted by the Federal Highway Administration (FHA)
because of the current federal plan findings. She said that is a
good example of trying to understand where the overlap between
the Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) and the
Municipal Planning Organizations (MPOs) Transportation
Improvement Plans (TIPs) lies. She said the MPOs TIPS may also
have to be "rolling" but it may be possible for them to be
asynchronous with the STIP. She explained that, in theory, the
STIP would show the revenue that would go into the MPO area and
then the MPO TIPs could be on their own schedule. They could
also operate their own public involvement as needed and
preferred. She said if there were any changes in revenue, they
would immediately follow it up with an amendment, but otherwise,
she said they would maintain the projects that were in progress.
She said the TIPs are still works in progress as all three
metropolitan planning organizations are shifting to adjust to
the updated STIP.
2:32:49 PM
CHAIR KAUFMAN sought clarification for the references to
"changes in revenue". He asked whether that meant appropriation.
or cost.
2:33:03 PM
MS. KEITH explained that there was a change between December
2023 and March 2024. There was an update in revenue forecasts
resulting from the move from 2010 census data to 2020 census
data; at the end of December, the Matanuska Valley Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MVP) came into existence. She said the
population shift resulted in the dollar amount for MVP to
program their available appropriation and AMATS was working to
make their TIP amendments in order to obligate the funds
available to them.
2:34:00 PM
CHAIR KAUFMAN sought to summarize. He said the old way [of
planning] was that DOTPFs STIP would be the home of all the
plans [for transportation projects in Alaska]; the new way will
be that the STIP will reference the planning elements and
details which will be found in each MPOs TIP. He described the
past process as working with the MPOs and other stakeholders to
develop an overall plan and that the new process will require
greater engagement between DOTPF, the MPOs and other
stakeholders to stay abreast of planning and programs. He said
it sounds like the way forward has been determined to be hosting
shared information online and to establish new engagement
processes.
2:35:25 PM
MS. KEITH affirmed the general description of the change in
planning processes and coordination. She said there would be
flowcharts, processes and efforts toward clarity and cooperation
to ensure that each organization involved is coordinating with
the others. She said it would require a significant amount of
communication and tools to be sure stakeholders are not doing a
disservice to the public by delaying projects.
2:36:02 PM
CHAIR KAUFMAN said the legislature was currently working on the
budget. He asked whether DOTPF was adequately funded for this
change implementation. He expressed concern over the delay in
developing the STIP and asked whether there was a change program
in place to manage all the different interfaces and the work
that will need to be done to implement a new work process.
2:36:38 PM
MS. KEITH said DOTPF was funded already through the Annual Work
Program. She said the state and the Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs) received a significant amount of planning
dollars [from the Federal Highways Administration]. She said
that funding used to be included in the STIP as a project, but
that it will no longer be included in the STIP, because
technically it did not have to be listed there. She reiterated
that DOTPF does have the funding to make the planning changes
and will be ensuring that staff have the resources they need to
make changes. She said the annual work program funding is for
STIP development and for other support functions such as
research funding and training funds. She expressed confidence
that DOTPF has the funds they need to make the planning changes
and that they would endeavor to be smart and modern and to use
tools that ensure efficiency.
2:38:04 PM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON moved to slide 13 and explained that the
Community Transportation Program and the Transportation
Alternatives Program were removed from the STIP after it was
originally rejected. When the STIP was resubmitted, those
programs were replaced with individual projects which were
informed by community participation and a scoring and ranking
process.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Project Allocations to Replace Programs
Community Transportation Program (CTP) &
Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP)
[Slide 13 includes a table showing the Project
Allocations used to replace programs and their
scores.]
2:39:04 PM
CHAIR KAUFMAN asked whether these projects did exist and were
detailed but weren't expressed as such.
2:39:13 PM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON said they were projects that had gone
through a nomination process, a solicitation and they included
details and were awarded, but they hadn't been included in the
STIP yet.
2:39:26 PM
CHAIR KAUFMAN pointed out that the optics are that there was a
bucket [of funding] here and an effort to figure out what to do
with that. He asked for confirmation that it was not that, but
that there were delineated and detailed projects that were
deliverable but had not been expressed as such.
2:39:49 PM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON agreed and said DOTPFs website provided
details about the process of the Community Transportation
Projects and the Transportation Alternative Projects.
2:39:51 PM
MS. KEITH said that one of the updates to the format for the
Community Transportation Projects and the Transportation
Alternative Projects was the inclusion of the process for
scoring the projects on the website. She emphasized the effort
to improve transparency and to communicate the decision-making
process with the public.
2:40:29 PM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON moved to slide 14 and addressed the tables
on the slide. He said these are the "programs" which were being
worked on and were removed from the STIP and are now expressed
in the STIP as "projects".
• In the first table, he said a lot of these are projects
DOTPF had been developing, for example the National
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure has been under development
in collaboration with Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) with an
overall strategy of working toward one sustainable
transportation system.
• The second table represents a new program, Frontier Roads,
Trails and Bridges which includes ice roads, the
development of new frontier road standards for rural
Alaska, with an emphasis on cost-effectiveness.
• He described the Protect program projects in the third
table falling under a specific funding source in Federal
Highways. He noted the announcement today of a $40 million
award to five Alaska communities in response to Typhoon
Merbok.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Sustainable Transportation Program; Frontier Roads,
Trails and Bridges; PROTECT
[Slide 14 consists of Tables listing the Project
Allocations replacing former Programs.]
2:42:05 PM
MS. KEITH moved to slide 15. She said this slide illustrates the
ledger approach and explained it as a way for DOTPF to show the
funding that was going toward the MPO planning as required by
the TIP. She said the final version which will be available on-
line will include a new format for the MPO TIPs. She said
instead of one page, there will be approximately ten pages for
each project which breaks out by fund source the revenue which
will be going into the project, the funding originally expected
by the MPO and the expenditures. She said the Federal Highway
Authority and the Federal Transit Administration called for this
information to be included in the STIP. She reported that the
MPOs and DOTPF are looking forward to having the published
revenue forecasts as a resource for future planning.
[Original punctuation provided.]
2024-2027 STIP Volume 2: TIPs Incorporated by
Reference
Tier 1, Finding 1: MPO and Other Transportation
Improvement Programs (References Appendix A 23 CFR
450.218(b) and (k)
[Slide 15 contains tables, definitions and narrative
to support DOTPF's ledger method for communicating and
tracking funding with MPOs.]
2:43:53 PM
CHAIR KAUFMAN stated that the key hope of the committee was to
learn what will be different, what was learned; and how DOTPF
will move forward with STIP development in the future. He
directed that the remainder of the presentation should focus on
steps to reduce the level of concern regarding fears of unfunded
projects and an impression of malaise and chaos on the part of
DOTPF toward the STIP.
2:45:00 PM
SENATOR TOBIN asked whether DOTPF intended to resume the E-STIP.
She recommended moving to slide 17.
2:45:30 PM
MS. KEITH moved to slide 17 and said there are a number of
slides that address the lessons learned and what practices DOTPF
was adopting as a normal course of action. She answered that
DOTPF would be using a digital version of the STIP moving
forward. She said integrating the large volume of information
from multiple stakeholder sources in a spreadsheet would not be
possible. She said DOTPF looks forward to using integrated
digital tools for planning and expects to implement a rolling
STIP to avoid the issues experienced this year as the deadline
approached. She said this will allow DOTPF to adapt to changes
from the federal government or the legislature or other entities
with amendments along the way.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Be Modern and Agile
Rolling STIP Model. Regularly update STIP, maintain
clarity in funding, and ensure public participation
for transparency as required by 23 CFR 450.218(p).
• Implement a rolling STIP model for continuous
engagement and real-time updates, clarity in
funding, and ensure public participation for
transparency.
• Use predictive analytics to foresee and prepare for
potential modifications.
Enhance with Digital Innovation
• Advance the STIP with interactive digital platforms.
• Integrate GIS for comprehensive spatial analysis.
• Create public portals to capture community voices
and ensure their influence on planning.
• Utilize advanced reporting for robust performance
metrics referencing 23 CFR 450.218(q) & 23 CFR
450.206(c).
• Use user-friendly design with full accessibility,
promoting inclusive participation and adherence to
legal standards.
2:47:27 PM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON noted that many other states had moved to
rolling STIPs some time ago and so their STIPs were not subject
to rejection. He said he expected the rolling STIP approach to
prevent the concern and confusion of stakeholders and residents
experienced during the recent STIP submission.
2:48:09 PM
CHAIR KAUFMAN noted that DOTPF was still working through a
backlog of actions, adapting to changes and moving forward. He
asked whether DOTPF has the resources in place to be able to
move forward with keeping the department running, drive the
improvements, and catch up on the backlog of work.
2:48:57 PM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON acknowledged that DOTPF is adapting to new
ways of working, assisted by technology and building teams in
new ways. He said, for example, that there would be an MPO team
versus the past approach with individual coordinators within
each MPO, following different procedures. The intent is to set
them up to work together and one of the next steps will be to
codify new policies and procedures. He said there are planning
contractors available to assist if DOTPF faces situations where
they need that support. He agreed that there is a lot of work to
do and that the hope is not to interrupt the flow of projects at
this time. He mentioned that there are systems being developed
and built to efficiently address trouble when it arises. He said
the next six months will be a big push.
2:51:17 PM
CHAIR KAUFMAN asked for clarification whether the system under
development was a technical query system.
2:51:20 PM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON affirmed that it was.
2:51:25 PM
SENATOR WILSON referred to the effort by DOTPF to adopt enhanced
digital innovation during STIP development. He said DOTPF
reported to the Senate Finance Committee that making the switch
away from spreadsheets and toward the new platform had met with
resistance. He asked what measures were being taken to avoid
repeating the cycle of resistance.
2:52:07 PM
MS. KEITH explained that the original platform, the E-STIP, had
bugs; DOTPF couldn't make changes themselves and had to pay an
outside/external contractor to make the fix. This led to a cycle
of identifying problems, contracting to have them fixed, paying
for the fix and then accumulating a new list of things to fix.
DOTPF then switched to a format that allowed the department to
fix and adjust themselves. She said this has been a
revolutionary change, though still not perfect as the data
entered into the system is only as good as the data available at
a given time. She said, now that the STIP approval has occurred,
the department is undergoing an evaluation of information
entering and potential problems, especially with collaborative
efforts. She said the system they are using now is
interchangeable and that staff who prefer to work with
spreadsheets can still do so. She said it is important that
staff with all technological abilities and comfort levels can
work within their needs and that data can be imported and
exported using the documents with which staff are comfortable.
She said the data modernization and innovation office was
working toward that synergy.
2:54:14 PM
CHAIR KAUFMAN asked whether all these changes are being tracked
and documented. He asked whether there is a roadmap or a
strategic plan for getting from the current operating state to
the desired operating state.
2:54:35 PM
MS. KEITH replied that DOTPF is capturing and documenting the
lessons learned as shared in the presentation. She emphasized
that the department and the MPOs are working toward their next
amendment which must be prepared within five months. She said
that target is their focus. She said that it would be very
valuable to document the changes the department has been
through.
2:55:35 PM
CHAIR KAUFMAN clarified that he wasn't referring to the work
product, but to the planning process, the roadmap, the
improvement project. He sought to make a distinction between the
projects described in the STIP and the project of improving
DOTPF's internal processes. He emphasized that if there is a
desired destination, it would be good to document the starting
point and the steps of an execution plan to arrive at the
desired destination. He reiterated that it is not the work
product resulting from this process that he was describing, but
the roadmap for the improved process itself.
2:56:13 PM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON said that the Tier 2 findings and the
requirements for documenting procedures and policies, in
particular with the collaboration between DOTPF and the MPOs,
which, he said, is some of the most confusing aspects [of the
STIP process]. He said the intent is to build the processes out
collaboratively with the MPOs, acknowledging that the MPOs may
have some different ideas. He anticipated a robust plan from
those efforts.
2:56:58 PM
MS. KEITH moved to slide 18 and said it is important to document
the process. She said it is also important to have the operating
agreements, the bylaws, and the agreements with the MPOs in
place, available, current and in compliance with federal
regulations, state regulations and statutes.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Governance and Compliance
• Upholding Federal Compliance through Reviews.
Conduct planning certification reviews, adhering
to federal standards per 23 CFR 450.336(b).
• Regular Updates to Governance Documents.
Institutionalize routine updates to documents
(bylaws and operating agreements), ensuring they
remain in compliance with statutes, policy
frameworks, and best practices in transportation.
• Authoritative Documentation. Maintain guidance or
policies/procedures as definitive records that
detail process and agreements.
• Fiscal Planning for Transportation Projects:
Adhere to 'Year of Expenditure' accounting,
integrating inflationary projections and
understand expectations for fiscal constraint-CFR
450.218(l).
2:57:42 PM
MS. KEITH moved to slide 19. She said the core of DOTPFs
approach is multidisciplinary teams, internally and externally.
She noted that more external stakeholders will be included in
the core team for developing the STIP moving forward. She noted
DOTPF's recognition of the importance of the Regional Planning
Organizations (RPOs) and that they intend to support the regions
in the effort to form the RPOs so they can significantly engage
in the development of projects. She emphasized the importance of
improving the accessibility of information and the opportunity
to meaningfully communicate and collaborate with constituents
and stakeholders.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Teaming and Collaboration
• Form Multidisciplinary Teams. Assemble a
coalition of internal and external specialists in
engineering, planning, communication, data
science, law, area knowledge, and financial
strategy.
• Stakeholder Integration. Foster a collaborative
process with diverse stakeholders.
• Metropolitan Coordination. Execute coordinated
planning efforts among MPOs and Regional Planning
Organizations (RPOs), and pertinent agencies in
accordance with 23CFR.450.208.
• Alignment of Transportation Improvement Programs.
Synchronize MPO Transportation Improvement
Programs (TIPs) with the STIP, ensuring regional
uniformity as specified in 23 CFR.450.218(b) and
(k).
• Tailored Outreach Strategies. Develop targeted
communication strategies for Title
6/Environmental Justice populations and minority
serving organizations to ensure broad community
involvement.
2:59:36 PM
SENATOR TOBIN expressed interest in learning more about DOTPFs
outreach strategies. She asked how DOTPF intends to quantify
robust public process and ensure maintenance of the metrics of
engagement as they move toward the rolling STIP. She asked how
many staff are tasked with tribal outreach. She wondered if they
were traveling to and engaging with the communities to
facilitate full public process.
3:00:36 PM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON said that DOTPF has designated a tribal
liaison and beyond that, recognizing that Alaska is a huge state
and that there are hundreds of tribes, he said there is a need
for tribal liaison in each division. He expressed appreciation
for the metrics on community engagement. He acknowledged the
challenge of providing a variety of ways to communicate and that
it would be an ongoing effort.
3:01:21 PM
SENATOR MYERS commented on the volume and magnitude of changes
for DOTPF in the development of the STIP. He expressed
appreciation to the department.
3:01:57 PM
SENATOR WILSON noted that there were projects listed as having
been removed from the STIP when they were actually renamed and
reclassified. He asked for a list that accurately described the
status of the projects, especially those that were removed
completely.
3:02:46 PM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON said his office would provide that
information to the committee.
3:02:58 PM
CHAIR KAUFMAN offered feedback from constituents who expressed
both concern over the perception that projects may not be funded
and appreciation for an improved level of interface with DOTPF.
3:04:35 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Kaufman adjourned the Senate Transportation Standing
Committee meeting at 3:04 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| STIP Approval Update by DOTPF 4.10.24.pdf |
STRA 4/11/2024 1:30:00 PM |
STIP |