HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE April 29, 1998 1:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative William K. (Bill) Williams, Chairman Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair Representative John Cowdery Representative Bill Hudson Representative Jerry Sanders Representative Kim Elton Representative Albert Kookesh MEMBERS ABSENT COMMITTEE CALENDAR CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 263(FIN) am "An Act relating to secondary roads and to the statewide transportation improvement program; and providing for an effective date." - HEARD AND HELD (* First public hearing) PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: SB 263 SHORT TITLE: SECONDARY ROADS SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TORGERSON, Pearce, Sharp Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 1/27/98 2318 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 1/27/98 2318 (S) TRA, FIN 2/03/98 (S) TRA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 2/03/98 (S) MINUTE(TRA) 2/04/98 2396 (S) COSPONSOR: SHARP 2/12/98 (S) TRA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 2/12/98 (S) MINUTE(TRA) 2/19/98 (S) TRA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 2/19/98 (S) MINUTE(TRA) 3/12/98 (S) TRA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 3/12/98 (S) MINUTE(TRA) 3/19/98 (S) TRA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 3/19/98 (S) MINUTE(TRA) 3/20/98 2915 (S) TRA RPT CS 2DP 1NR SAME TITLE 3/20/98 2915 (S) DP: WARD, GREEN NR: WILKEN 3/20/98 2915 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS (DOT) 3/27/98 (S) FIN AT 8:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 4/01/98 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 4/02/98 3111 (S) FIN RPT CS 4DP 2NR NEW TITLE 4/02/98 3111 (S) DP: PEARCE, SHARP, TORGERSON, DONLEY; 4/02/98 3111 (S) NR: PARNELL, ADAMS 4/02/98 3111 (S) PREVIOUS FN APPLIES (DOT) 4/07/98 (S) RLS AT 11:25 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203 4/07/98 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 4/08/98 3199 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/8/98 4/08/98 3200 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 4/08/98 3200 (S) MOTION TO ADOPT FIN CS 4/08/98 3201 (S) HELD W/CS MOTION PNDG TO 4/14 CALENDAR 4/14/98 3244 (S) HELD W/CS MOTION PNDG TO 4/15 CALENDAR 4/15/98 3273 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 4/15/98 3273 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 4/15/98 3274 (S) FAILED TO ADVANCE TO 3RD Y14 N5 E1 4/15/98 3274 (S) THIRD READING 4/16 CALENDAR 4/16/98 3296 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 263(FIN) AM 4/16/98 3297 (S) PASSED Y15 N5 4/16/98 3297 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE 4/16/98 3297 (S) DUNCAN NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION 4/17/98 3345 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP 4/17/98 3346 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 4/18/98 3071 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 4/18/98 3072 (H) TRANSPORTATION 4/29/98 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17 WITNESS REGISTER MARY JACKSON, Legislative Assistant to Senator John Torgerson Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 514 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-2828 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Senator Torgerson, sponsor of CSSB 263(FIN) am. THOMAS BRIGHAM, Director Division of Statewide Planning Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 3132 Channel Drive Juneau, Alaska 99801-7898 Telephone: (907) 465-4070 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and answered questions on SB 263. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 98-21, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIRMAN WILLIAM K. (BILL) WILLIAMS called the House Transportation Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Williams, Cowdery, Sanders, Elton and Kookesh. Representatives Hudson and Masek arrived at 1:10 p.m. and 1:12 p.m., respectively. SB 263 - SECONDARY ROADS Number 0080 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said the committee would hear CSSB 263(FIN) am "An Act relating to secondary roads and to the statewide transportation improvement program; and providing for an effective date," sponsored by Senator Torgerson. Number 0120 MARY JACKSON, Legislative Assistant to Senator John Torgerson, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee to testify. She informed the committee that the bill before them is in two sections. Section 1 deals with the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which was amended in Senate Finance. Section 2 is the initial bill, which deals with the secondary roads program that Senator Torgerson felt the legislature needed to pursue as a state. MS. JACKSON said that Section 2 is Senator Torgerson's primary focus. She said the purpose of this bill is simple and explained that there are people in the state of Alaska who have enjoyed the privilege of being a resident of the state of Alaska who have lived on unimproved graveled roads, in some cases, since statehood. She said, "We have not been pursuing any active pursuit of developing or improving those roads." She said the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) program is under a process of reauthorization, and the state of Alaska appears to be able to be the recipient of somewhere between $80-120 million of additional funds over and above what they currently receive. Senator Torgerson felt that it was an appropriate (indisc.) to use some of those funds to put them to award the unimproved roads. She said, "The initial was graveled roads that was amended in Senate Transportation to include terminology called 'cold asphaltic, which I know as chip seal, but apparently cold asphaltic is now (indisc). That has been extended to include those roads as well. But the clue is unimproved, graveled, or cold asphaltic roads. The intent is to allocate up to $20 million annually for five years. And obviously it's all subject to legislative appropriation." She indicated she would be happy to answer any questions from the committee. Number 0319 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY asked, "What was the terminology used for chip seal?" MS. JACKSON replied, cold asphaltic. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated he thinks that might be recycled asphalt. He referred back to the bill and said, "They were going to change the point system, as I understand, based on the traffic. Would that, for instance, would they consider the road system say, for instance, a bridge in the Committee Chairman's district. I understand there's about 400,000 people a year would use that possibly. Would that fit under that category?" MS. JACKSON replied that it fits into Section 1 of this bill. She indicated that Section 1 is the STIP, which is currently not in statute, and Section 1 defines that there are three categories in the STIP: 1) National Highway System (NHS), 2) Trails and Recreation Access for Alaska (TRAAK), and 3) Community Transportation Program (CTP). She said many bridges are under the CTP and Section 1 addresses the traffic count only in the CTP. If a bridge were in the CTP, that traffic would be counted as the bill is currently written. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if the priority should be based on the use. MS. JACKSON said, "Under Section 1, yes." She said it would only be for the CTP. As the bill is currently written, one of the factors for the ranking is a 20 percent traffic count. Number 0470 REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON said his understanding is that the bill started out without Section 1 and later it was added. He said he would like to know what the other factors are in determining priorities. He said one of the things that bothers him is that strictly using volume leaves out a lot of other important factors such as, "What does this do for economic development? What does this do for public safety?" He asked, "Could you tell me what else is involved when they determine the prioritization and what happens when you say that 20 percent of the priority must be volume only?" MS. JACKSON replied that she believes there are 15 categories that are ranked or considered. She said the existing ranking system is approximately 3 percent for the traffic count and if it goes up to 20 percent, then it will mean an adjustment on the other 14 ranking systems. She said she does not know how that would be accomplished. Presumably the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT/PF) will have to review that in their rating system. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he is uncomfortable saying that it will be 20 percent without knowing what the effect is going to be on the other priorities and how it will be done. He said he has a real problem with that portion of the bill. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said he will not let the bill out of committee until that portion of the bill is worked on to find out how it affects everyone. MS. JACKSON noted the original amendment that was placed by the Senate Finance committee indicated a 40 percent traffic volume level, which was amended on the Senate floor to 20 percent. Number 0670 THOMAS BRIGHAM, Director, Division of Statewide Planning, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, came before the committee to testify. He referred to page 1, lines 7-8 and said Section 1 provides for three categories: national highway system, trails and recreational access, and community transportation and said that is, in fact, the way the system is currently set up. He said DOT/PF is concerned about what they call their secondary state highways and that improvements are generally not being funded. He indicated that the department will be going out with a public review of a perspective secondary state highway system. It's DOT/PF's observation that the current system seems to work reasonably well for national highway system roots and community roads that are important to a community, but one of the categories that is basically being left out is state-owned secondary highways. He said if this bill moves forward, they would request that a fourth category such as secondary highways or state highways be added to allow for that addition of that program. MR. BRIGHAM referred to page 2, lines 1-2, which reads: ...in accordance with the process and standards established by the department by regulation,... MR. BRIGHAM said DOT/PF is in favor of regulating transportation projects because they believe they have a reasonably good system and putting it in regulation would provide more stability. He said there are also regulations called for in Section 2 of the bill and noted that the cumulative fiscal impact is approximately $100,000. He stated that it takes a fair amount of effort to get regulations promulgated and adopted and pointed out that there is a small fiscal impact. He indicated that the department generally estimated that any new regulatory effort is around $50,000. He indicated if the department does not have a fiscal note in, that they will have to submit one. Number 0915 MR. BRIGHAM referred to page 2, lines 14-16, which reads: ...In determining the priority of each community transportation project, the department shall determine at least 20 percent of the ranking of the project based on the volume of use of the facility that is the... He said that part is probably the most controversial aspect of SB 263. He referred to a handout in the committee's packets entitled, "Top 250 ADTs (non-NHS routes)" and said it not a ranking, but a rank order of road segments in the state off the national highway system by traffic volume. He said the routes listed on the handout would be in the competition in the CTP ranking. He noted that the system is broken into segments of routes because each segment typically has a different traffic volume. Number 1040 REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON interjected and asked what is the primary basis for the listing Mr. Brigham just addressed. He asked what "ADT" means. MR. BRIGHAM replied, "average daily traffic." REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said, "Okay, so, if we're looking at volume, this is the measurement that you're relating to the committee?" MR. BRIGHAM answered in the affirmative. He said they are for non- national highway segments. If it included the NHS, there would be a whole lot ahead of this because those tend to be the highest volume. For example, Egan Drive in Juneau has very high volumes, but most of it is on the NHS. He noted that the proposed legislation calls for 20 percent of the weight applied to traffic volume on non-NHS facilities. He told the committee the list shows the volumes which are raw and unmodified. He noted that the bulk of the top 250 on the list are in Anchorage and there's a sizeable number of Juneau pieces, and also a sizeable number of Fairbanks pieces, but not much of anyone else. He said the way the bill is currently written would also apply to remote/Bush roads. He said DOT/PF's view is that traffic volume is basically irrelevant. When it comes to ranking a project in the Bush, there isn't any. The project isn't built to serve traffic, it's built to get some kind of a decent road, for example, to a sewage lagoon so the "honey buckets" don't slop over and give everyone hepatitis. He said the whole point of the project is completely different. He said if the desire of the committee is to improve this bill, he would urge the committee to exclude remote/Bush projects from the traffic volume criteria. He indicated that he feels it's the only reasonable thing to do. MR. BRIGHAM said DOT/PF tried to get a quick sense of what the impact of the 20 percent would be and he referred to another handout entitled"Effects of SB 263 on Community Transportation Program Project Scores and Ranking" in the committee's packet. He said the results are pretty conservative and their quick analysis suggested that most of the Anchorage projects would receive virtually all of the possible traffic points. It depends on how the scale is set. He said if you look around the state, the Anchorage links have a lot more than anyone else, which would boost the Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (AMATS) minimum allocation. He said, "I think the $6 million we show here in point number 2 is fairly conservative, my guess is, especially when -- if Anchorage sort of caught on and advanced more projects. Since that's an average over six years, it would tend to go up by more than that. Fairbanks actually did surprising well. In the first four years they were up by about $5 million a year. Juneau, even though there are a number of Juneau high traffic links based on what projects are actually in the mix right now during the next six years or so, Juneau stayed about the same. Mat-Su, it depended a great deal on which parts of Mat-Su you're looking at. The higher density parts, Palmer and Wasilla, did okay. The lower density parts of Mat-Su did not and would probably lose funding. And then, which would come as no great surprise, the rural and remote areas would get significantly less funding. So it's pretty much, I think, as you would expect, is what our analysis suggests. This is really a policy call; it's a judgment call." MR. BRIGHAM said DOT/PF believes the current scoring is pretty well balanced. He said if you look at needs statewide, they try to do a decent job of balancing the needs and the low traffic volume, more rural communities with those in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau. He said if the committee feels the scoring is not alright or if they want to push more money toward the higher traffic volume areas, then this would be one way to do it. He said, "As you can see, 20 percent - it's not completely, it doesn't completely tip everything, except in the real low volume remote and Bush areas and I think that would need a fix. It would definitely send more money to Anchorage and Fairbanks, and I would say in the long run, probably to Juneau, as well. With other places it's either kind of status quo or probably less funding." He advised the committee if Anchorage is concerned about the amount of money that's going in the AMATS pot, AMATS can bring more projects forward, there are ways to get those projects to score better, which will drive up the AMATS pot without putting this high traffic volume spin on the rest of the state. In conclusion, he feels there are ways to address the AMATS allocation issue without affecting the rest of the state as dramatically as this would. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked, "When you came up with this here, did you us this information?" MR. BRIGHAM replied in the affirmative stating that they used the current traffic volumes and redid their criteria and the criteria sheet based on establishing a new criteria that was purely traffic volume was weighted at 20 percent of the total weight, which would be about a 60-point criterion. He said, "The most of any of the criteria now, about 25 points, which is about 10 percent. The safety, for example, is weighted at about 10 percent." He noted they have a criterion that is really a surrogate for cost benefit and it includes cost, length and traffic. Therefore, as traffic goes up, the points go up; as cost goes up, your points go down. It's a cost-effectiveness substitute. He told the committee that they added an additional criterion, which would be worth 20 percent of the total value and they looked at the ADT from the same database and developed a rough idea of what that would do to scores and developed the six conclusions. MR. BRIGHAM stated that there are a number of areas of the state that would not be funded, or they would see their funding go down fairly dramatically as a result of the 20 percent. He said they would advise against it because he feels it would create more unhappiness as a result of this. Number 1550 REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK referred to the ranking systems DOT/PF used for CTPs and asked Mr. Brigham what other types of ranking systems they use besides the ADT. MR. BRIGHAM said there are 15 other criteria outlined in the Rural and Urban Streets and Roads Project Evaluation Criteria in the committee's packets. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked if SB 263, as currently written, complies with the federal rules and standards that DOT/PF is currently using. MR. BRIGHAM replied in the affirmative. He said they don't see anything that would be out of synch with the federal regulations. This legislation is basically an adjustment of the current system that would be applied to the criteria they currently use. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked, "Is it possible to write to regulations under SB 263 to establish uniform construction standards throughout the state because we're so diverse in the areas? Some regions may have a lot more rain than other areas of the state. How would the department meet those regulations?" MR. BRIGHAM commented that Representative Masek raised a good point. He said his sense is that they could write regulations that would be general enough that they would be applicable across the state and generally would set a base standard for unimproved secondary roads. He said it's a fair amount of work, which is why there would be some fiscal impact. He indicated he feels they could do it. Inevitably, some people would say that the standard is too high for their area, even though it may be a reasonable standard on a statewide basis. Mr. Brigham pointed out that they have a project in the STIP called "road resurfacing and transfer," which does what Section 2 of the bill calls for whereby they receive candidate projects from communities to fix up a state route and transfer that route to the local community. He noted that it started out slowly last year and advised that they had a couple of routes in Nome that were submitted and qualified. This year, they have one in Mat-Su, Kenai, and Fairbanks and couple in Nome. He said the demand they have had fits within the $2-3 million that they have allocated to that particular STIP project; therefore, they have responded to the level of demand that has come forward to them thus far. He said they have not seen $20 million worth of demand in the form of roadways that communities would take ownership and maintenance of if DOT/PF fixed them up. He indicated his sense is that it may be appropriated and that it would be operating in the range of $3-6 million a year based on what they've seen thus far. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK how many secondary roads in the state need to be upgraded. MR. BRIGHAM said he did not know. He said as a result of history, the state owns a lot of roads in the state that would be county or local roads in other states and there are a lot of miles that would be a candidate for this upgrading program. He does not see a problem with finding candidates. He said the problem is finding a community that wants to own the roads and pay for their ongoing upkeep. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked if the legislature allowed DOT/PF to appropriate $20 million from federal funds for secondary roads, will that violate the criteria established by the federal government, and perhaps make Alaska ineligible for federal funds? MR. BRIGHAM advised the committee that Alaska has an exemption under Section 118(f) of the ISTEA law that allows Alaska to spend money on virtually any public road. He said looking at how the criteria and scoring process works, it's easier for a higher volume, more important road to qualify than it is for a subdivision road. It's virtually impossible for a local subdivision road to score in the running and he feels that it's appropriate because it's a local responsibility. From a strict federal regulation point of view, based on the flexibility that Alaska has, he doesn't believe that this would run a foul of that. He indicated that DOT/PF would provide a category in the STIP and they would try to make sure that that category is large enough to fund whatever comes forward, which has been approximately $1-2 million a year. He said they have no problem with the idea and noted that they do it right now, and as long as the language is permissive, that would be fine. He indicated that $20 million is probably more than they would use in a year, but it's nice to set the limit high. Number 1908 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON referred to the matrix handed out and asked how would the provisions in SB 263 fit into the matrix. He asked if it would be a separate category, or if they would have a separate matrix for the categories in the bill. MR. BRIGHAM explained that the bill would change that matrix. They would probably add an additional category that would be for traffic volume only. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said, "So it would elevate the projects essentially targeted in the bill above all of the standard measurements that you have in the matrix." MR. BRIGHAM replied that it would make traffic volume the most important standard in the matrix funding element by a factor of more than two. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON commented that one of the most important aspects of building roads and allocating money to roads is the kind of economic wash you get from that expenditure. If it operates to open up new subdivisions, for example, in the Anchorage area that creates new opportunities for new housing or if it opens up a road to the potential of a mind development, or things of this nature. He said he is trying to figure out what the public good is, other than perhaps shifting a greater portion of whatever funds they have available to the traffic volume streets, which would probably be Anchorage Fairbanks and Juneau at the expense of rural Alaska. MR. BRIGHAM said the funding would shift. He said even 20 percent is enough of a difference in the waiting that you would see a shift in the funding. He referred to the "Rural and Urban Streets and Roads Project Evaluation Criteria" handout, number 11, and said their preference would be to possibly increase the weight of that criteria, which is the cost, length, and traffic criterion from a weight of 4 to a maximum of 5, rather than go to a whole new criterion. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked how long would it take and how much would it cost to put traffic counts up for secondary roads that may need upgrading. MR. BRIGHAM explained that there is a ongoing traffic counting program that counts at least once every three years virtually every road and street on the connected roadway system and the major pieces that are off the system. He advised that they do not count village streets because it's pretty much an irrelevant issue. He said the cost of going out there and counting very low volumes of traffic doesn't tell them anything and that is why if something like this were to go forward, Bush/remote sites should be excluded. He pointed out that the remote criteria they use is different than the rural and urban criteria because the whole rationale for doing those kinds of projects is different. He said it would be expensive to fly out to the Bush to do the traffic counts, and DOT/PF feels that it would be pointless and a waste of money. Number 2208 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK gave an example to the committee. For instance, if the Matanuska-Susitna Borough recommended to upgrade ten secondary roads, and if this bill passed and DOT/PF only went out every three years, she wanted to know how long it would take and how much it would cost to get the traffic counts on ten roads that were identified in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. MR. BRIGHAM said if they had current traffic counts, it would not be a problem. If, for some reason, the road was not on the counting system, it would cost a small increment of additional money because they would have to fly out to a community that is not on the road system. He said if they could drive to the site, the additional expense is not too bad. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK noted that there's nothing in the bill that addresses the rural areas. MR. BRIGHAM pointed out that Section 1 of the bill only addresses traffic and location is not a factor, which DOT/PF believes is a problem. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Mr. Brigham if DOT/PF is in the process of (indisc.) their STIP regulations. MR. BRIGHAM replied they are not. He said there's an underlying concern that the regulations will be fine for the current administration, but there is concern regarding what will happen with the next administration. He indicated that placing the process in regulation would certainly be an important step toward providing some greater stability in the way projects are selected. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked how SB 263 would affect the Alaska Marine Highway. MR. BRIGHAM replied that the effect would be very small because most of the Alaska Marine Highway projects qualify under the National Highway System category. He pointed out that there are a few terminal improvements in locations such as Hoonah and Angoon that are off the mainline that would be affected by this bill. He said he is not sure how DOT/PF would take those into account. Number 2395 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked, "If this bill passes with the 20 percent language, you would then add to this a separate category. That separate category to meet the 20 percent would require how many points?" MR. BRIGHAM said it would require 60 points. He said it would have a weight of 5, but the total possible points would be 60. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Brigham if he has any idea how the points would be rearranged for the other factors. He asked if the points would need to be lowered. MR. BRIGHAM said, "Well, (indisc.) obviously do it anyway, but the simple way to look at this is given there's 225-235 points possible right now, if you add on 60, you don't need to lower anything else. Your new total -- 60 points would be 20 percent of the new total. So it's a very simple way to comply with this proposed bill." REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "So then what you would do is you would then have the scoring criteria going out to the right here in which a certain amount of those 60 -- you can get the full 60 points if...." MR. BRIGHAM interjected and said, "In high traffic volumes, above 15,000 cars per day." REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked, "And you would do that, probably then with hard numbers." MR. BRIGHAM replied, "Yes." He noted that the highest ADT on the handout is Diamond Boulevard at the Old Seward Highway, which is 39,000. He said part of it is in setting the scale, but obviously the desire here is the full points, which would be lots of traffic, and zero points would be not very much traffic and they would have a scale in between the two. TAPE 98-21, SIDE B Number 0012 MS. JACKSON pointed out that Mr. Brigham recommended that the committee consider putting secondary roads into the title and she said it's probably not a bad concept, but SB 263 has a five-year limit on that program. She said she did not know how appropriate it would be to put in a program in statute that will go away in five years. She referred to a question asked by Representative Masek regarding how many roads there are statewide. She indicated that there are 2,270 miles of graveled road, which DOT/PF provided them last September and DOT/PF's estimate on the cost to reconstruct them was $540 million. She said SB 263 provides for $20 million for five years which would total $100 million. She said there will be ample people who will approach this and take advantage of it. She continued, "This bill does not limit itself to only those roads to be improved that will be transferred to a municipality. It's an upgraded road that needs to be done. It will be in excess of the $3-5 million that the previous gentlemen [Thomas Brigham] spoke to on an annual basis. We believe it will be the full $20 million. Of that full $20 million, there may be $5 or $6 million, which would be transferred to municipalities, but the other $14 [million] can and should be expended on graveled roads and upgrading them. Every time you upgrade a graveled maintained road in the state of Alaska that is maintained by the state of Alaska, you will be reducing the cost of the maintenance of the road, and that's another critical component to be considered." Ms. Jackson referred to Representative Masek's testimony regarding standards. She indicated that it will be very difficult to development statewide standards. Every community not only has their own desire, but every community may very well have -- a neighborhood arterial may need to be "X" amount of feet in width with a setback from the sidewalk, et cetera. More importantly, the soils for each community and the availability of materials would dictate that. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON referred to page 3, line 13, subsection (c) and asked if he is correct in reading the $20 million as a cap or could it be less? MS. JACKSON said it is a cap that is intended to be a $100 million program for five years. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if they put the maximum in, would it satisfy the interest? MS. JACKSON replied in the affirmative. She said, of course, it is all subject to appropriation and SB 263 would allow that it not exceed $20 million. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if TRAAK falls under Section 2, secondary roads. MS. JACKSON replied that it does not. She said the system that the state currently has is the NHS, the TRAAK, and the CTP. As a practical matter, the roads that SB 263 addresses have not been improved and they are not included in the CTP because they never make it that far. She indicated that they don't even get on a 20- year list, let alone a five-year list. She said secondary roads would be a stand-alone problem and said it's probably not a bad idea to put them under the NHS, the TRAAK or the CTP, but if it's a five-year program, which is what this is, the legislature may not want to put it in statute like that. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON suggested taking a year's available funding for this project and show the committee how much of the funds go to each of the three categories of the STIP to give the committee some idea of what is being targeted with this bill. Number 0224 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON noted that his staff submitted a letter and resolution of support from the City of Kenai as part of the bill packet. He said he would assume that Kenai may not have sent a letter and resolution of support, if they had known that Section 1 was going to be added. He pointed out that the effect of adding Section 1 is that the highest project Kenai has is number 221 on a list of 250. He commented he can't imagine that the City of Kenai would be happy with that unfortunate (indisc.). MS. JACKSON said that they discussed the 40, 30, and 20 percent traffic count, as it crept its way down, since the bill was sent to the Senate Finance Committee. She continued, "Internally the discussion has been that it was probably intended to be on a regional community, so it wasn't intended, as we had understood it, to be Anchorage versus Kenai, or Juneau versus Kenai, or Kenai versus Palmer. Our understanding was that the intent of it was that it be offered in a regional or community basis. But in all honesty, we're not really quite sure what that means or how to even affect an amendment to clarify that." She indicated that Senator Torgerson has discussed the matter with the Chair and that they are looking at options right now to clarify that. Number 0296 REPRESENTATIVE ALBERT KOOKESH referred to DOT/PF's comments that there's nothing wrong with the present system, and he said he is concerned that they're doing this. He indicated that he looks for ulterior motives and referred to the list of effects of SB 263 on CTP project scores given to the committee, specifically, item number 6, which reads: "Rural and remote areas would receive significantly less funding." He said he is getting used to seeing rural Alaska receive a little less money under these types of scenarios. He asked, "If it's not broken, why are we trying to fix it?" He commented that he can see urban Alaska again trying to benefit as a result of rural Alaska getting less. He stated that he is uncomfortable that people would do this under the guise of trying to make Alaska a better place. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS pointed out that he believes tomorrow the committee will be on a 24-hour rule that the conference committee has appointed. He said the committee will take up this bill again on Friday if they work out their concerns. He asked the committee members to keep in touch with his office to let him know what they think. ADJOURNMENT Number 0395 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS adjourned the House Transportation Standing Committee at 2:00 p.m.