HJR 14-PORT MACKENZIE & NORTHERN RAIL EXTENSIONS  1:28:56 PM CO-CHAIR CARRICK announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 14, Supporting the completion of the Port MacKenzie Rail Extension and the Northern Rail Extension; supporting the increase in defensive capabilities at Fort Greely, Alaska; encouraging a renewed commitment by the Alaska Railroad to a community-minded approach to future rail expansion; and encouraging the development of critical Arctic infrastructure. 1:29:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE, as prime sponsor, introduced HJR 14. He stated that the Northern Rail Extension project and the Port MacKenzie Rail Extension project would strengthen the state's infrastructure, defense capabilities, and resiliency. He stated that Alaska's strategic location on the Arctic Ocean, coupled with the growing defense operations at Fort Greely, underscores the urgency for the need to complete the two rail extension projects, as proposed by HJR 14. REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE stated that the Northern Rail Extension project would enhance the state's defense infrastructure. He pointed out that the completion is 70 miles from Fort Greely and Delta Junction, including the Tanana River crossing. He stated that the Port MacKenzie Rail Extension project, with support from the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) Borough and the Alaska Railroad, is near completion. It would provide a range of benefits, including reduced energy costs, reduced emissions, and improved transportation costs of key goods, such as coal to tide water. He pointed out that this extension project would align with the current federal administration's goal of unlocking Alaska's resources and increasing energy exports. REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE suggested that the rail extensions would alleviate road congestion, enhance supply chain resilience, and create jobs, while ensuring greater affordability for Alaskans. Furthermore, the proposed resolution would encourage the Alaska Railroad to engage with local communities. He summarized that the proposed resolution is not only about transportation infrastructure, but also about securing Alaska's economic future, strengthening defense, securing resiliency for residents in the Interior, and enhancing energy security. He noted the letters of support for HJR 14. 1:33:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE STUTES commented on the letter of support from the mayor and manager of the Mat-Su Borough. She noted that the letter was not addressed to most of the committee members and questioned the reason for this. She also questioned why the extension projects had stopped. REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE responded that the letter in question was addressed to the delegation of the Mat-Su Borough, as this was who requested the letter in support. In response to the second question, he explained that the projects had not stopped because of funding, and he pointed out the bridge over the Tanana River had cost $2 million. He added that it is the longest bridge in the state, but "it goes absolutely nowhere." He noted that the money has been spent, but the project is not complete. He pointed out that $184 million of state money was spent on the Port MacKenzie Rail Extension project. He said, "It's the largest, most expensive snowmobile trail in the world," and he suggested it is now a "highway for criminals." He explained that there are 7.2 miles left to construct. There had been a right-of-way issue, he said, but once this was resolved, there was no more funding. REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE, in response to a series of follow-up questions, stated that the railbed is there, but there are no tracks. He added that it is in good shape, except for some one- lane bridges. He responded that there is no railroad steel laid down yet, only a roadbed. He continued that the railroad has estimated the cost of completion to be $290 million; however, from other sources, he has heard a maximum estimate of $150 million. He posed the question of why it would cost the Alaska Railroad more. He noted that the Federal Railroad Administration has also provided lower estimates, and he expressed the opinion that politics has influenced the estimates. In response to a question concerning the number of tracks laid in the last 25 years, he stated that no miles of running track have been laid. He responded that he would provide the committee with maps of the projects. 1:42:35 PM CO-CHAIR CARRICK commented on the letter of support from the Alaska Railroad, which listed the cost of completing the 32-mile Port MacKenzie Rail Extension project as $275 million to $300 million. She questioned how much this would be per mile, and she questioned whether this cost would be reflected in any other rail project. REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE responded that this would be around $14 million per mile. He expressed the opinion that a fraction of the cost would finish the project, and he suggested that the high price is because of politics. In response to a question concerning whether the railroad has been proactive, he expressed the opinion that the Alaska Railroad's $484 million estimate speaks for how proactive the railroad has been. He stated that the Alaska Railroad had applied for a federal grant from the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) Program last year, but it had been rejected because the application was incorrect. He noted that the railroad plans to apply for the grant again this year; however, the railroad has said it does not have the needed letters of support from Alaska's Congressional Delegation and the governor. He expressed the understanding that support has been voiced from these entities. He suggested that the railroad might be concerned about the anchor tenant in Port MacKenzie; however, he expressed doubt on the concept of an "anchor tenant." He argued that for the growth of resources in the state, the Port MacKenzie Rail Extension project would need to be completed. 1:47:53 PM CO-CHAIR EISCHEID referenced the letter in support from the Alaska Railroad and expressed the desire to ask the railroad questions concerning the estimated cost. He questioned the intent of the language on page 3, lines 15-19, of the proposed resolution, which requests that the railroad renew its commitment to a "community-minded approach". REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the observation that the Alaska Railroad has struggled with community relations and those who live on the right-of-way. He suggested that this would urge the railroad, which is owned by Alaskans, to take a more community- minded stance with everything. CO-CHAIR EISCHEID expressed appreciation for the sentiment; moreover, he voiced skepticism about organizations and government entities that are based away from communities. He noted that metropolitan planning organizations have the same concern with the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities' ability to stay sensitive to local concerns. 1:51:35 PM CO-CHAIR CARRICK expressed appreciation for the inclusion of the clause under discussion. She noted that encouraging the railroad to be more accessible to Alaskans also relates to the proposed legislation [HB 26] heard earlier in the meeting. She shared a personal anecdote about railroad travel and its affordability in the past. She noted that now flying and driving are less expensive and quicker than rail travel in the state. She opined that if it were less expensive, more people would use the railway. She stated that the resolution is "critically" important, noting the support from mine developers and industrial purposes. She suggested a clause in the proposed resolution to highlight this purpose. 1:53:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE noted that this type of legislation has been offered before, and it passed. He opined that HJR 14 could be used in support for the CRISI grant. He spoke to the success of the railroad, as it has not gone bankrupt and not asked the state for money. He commended the Alaska Railroad on doing an admirable job, especially through the COVID-19 pandemic; however, he reiterated that the Alaska Railroad works for Alaskans. 1:54:54 PM CO-CHAIR CARRICK announced that HJR 14 was held over.