May 07, 2026 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM
Okay, Member Lindamood, Member Keegan. Present. Member Bowland. Here. Member White. Here. Member Coy. Here. Member Kohlhaas. Here. Member Rudolph here. And member Babb. Present. Okay, you have a forum. So welcome to the technical advisory committee. Every comments are welcome and encouraged with three minutes given to each speaker. After the committee discusses each item, members of the public will invited to comment. Housekeeping items For virtual attendees, please keep your cameras off unless speaking. For those attending by phone, press star six to mute or unmute yourself. As a reminder, AMATS committee meetings are audio recorded and post on the AMATS YouTube page. Just a heads up for today's meeting, the conference room speakers are broken again, so we are having to use the Howells. So as committee members if you could please speak up to make sure everybody can hear you accordingly. Thank you. Perfect. Thank you Aaron. The first item on the next item on the agenda is actually the approval of the agenda. Do we have a motion Vote to approve it up. Okay. Moved by Mr. Bowland. Second line. Mr. Lindamood, are there any changes to the agenda that are needed? If hearing no changes, are there any opposed to approving the agenda? Okay, hearing then Opposed? The agenda is approved. Next item are the minutes of the previous meeting. Do I have a motion approved by member Keegan?
To the next Mr. Chair? I have two minor ones. Okay. On page six, the first paragraph where it says MK suite, I don't believe this was my comment. So I would ask, we can go back and check record find out, make those comments. Just on the first one, that's all. And then on page 10 on the last one that says ms, I'd like to change that to say, noted that the information from the fire department is not included in that information, but I would like to say but has been gathered by P and E more recently. Not CRW. Okay. But has that time It has, yeah. Okay. Thank you.
Yeah, we can look into it and let you know who said it and just verify and make sure there's no problems with it. Okay. Also looking that I noticed on the attendee list that had a few organizations it has Andrew, I thought I brought my copy with some markups. I don't see it. There's been one more. It was Jackson Fox does not the at p he's Fast connect. Those are the two that I saw from there.
Up. Huh? Should have a not in there. Yes. So it would not, the traffic study would not, yeah, would not necessarily open things up. Are there other changes for the minutes? Yeah, that was, that was quite a bit of things. So thank you. With these changes, do they need to be made by amendments to those amendments
Okay. Culture. Okay. Wish someone right to make a motion to that effect to a amend The minutes for discussion. A motion made by Mr. Bowland. Second. Second by Member White, are there any discussion on the motion and amendment? Anyone opposed to that amendment? Hearing none, that amendment is incorporated. Are there any other changes or discussion on the minutes? Okay, hearing none. Are there any opposed to approving the minutes as amendments? Okay, hearing then the minutes are approved. Moving now into our action items. Item five A is the AMATS Transportation climate Actions plan. Is that one that Christine will be or Emily? Emily la Okay.
For the record, Emily Wiser, I'm the non coordinator at and also leading the climate action plan. So today we have sort of circling back on some of the discussion that's been had in the previous committee meetings. So you guys had recommended it for public release and then the policy committee has some comments and then we had a work session with both committees. And so what we've done is compile the list of the changes that have been discussed. So there hasn't been any final vote on those or direction to make those changes. But just so that everything's in one place, we have that list in the memo that is in front of you. And then we also have Alex be with RSG to run through with just a couple of slides with the information on this. And then, so just keeping 'em back as we remind that the action for today is to recommend which of these changes, if any or if all of them we would suggest that the policy committee direct us to make on the plan.
Time-wise, we are working on a contract extension so that we can go past the engineering when it currently ends cost wise, we have the cost itemized out for you and, and we'll we can certainly talk more about that. And the next item on your agenda is a tip admin mod where funding could be added to this project if that is the committee. So all of that is within the realm of possibility. All these changes before you have the cost, but it's within the realm of possibility. And with that I think I'll hand it over to Alex who's online to walk you through it.
Thank you Emily. And good afternoon everybody. Present my screen. Bear with me. As Emily noted, we have a short slide deck that encapsulates the, the contents of the memo that was shared. I hope folks have had a chance to review that, but if not, this will cover most of the key content and give you some categories that will help interpret what's listed there. So as noted, this was all formulated in response to a work session held with the members of the policy committee as well as as the tac. And the discussion of that ensued. There is a few, I should say are a few remaining tasks under the tcap that are presumed to be, you know, work that will be undertaken regardless of the direction received from the committee at either you know, this month or or in the near future. And that includes all of the engagement work that was already envisioned to both revisit the stakeholder engagement and hold a workshop with stakeholders to review the draft plan, get their comments and input on it as well as to release the plan for public comment and to respond to those comments.
Of course, as Emily noted, we have not received explicit direction on any additional work or modifications to the plan that would be required before releasing it for comment or or holding that engagement session. And so that needs to take place. And then of course we need to actually address the feedback received and the direction received in order to update the the document so that we can move forward with the engagement.
The consulting teams hours have of course been impacted by the additional work to coordinate across the committees and be prepared and in responsive to requests and and lines of questioning. We've broken it out by firm indicating the hours remaining here and this will of course inform how that's broken out and the allocation of work across the three major firms supporting the, the TCAP for us at RSG, our partners at RN and we have a little bit of hours remaining UE planning has exhausted their budget and really doesn't have the capacity to fulfill the portion that was originally allocated, but the rest of the team does have capacity to compensate for that. In terms of the presuppose remaining work, which includes again the engagement in response to comments that leaves some question marks over how much bandwidth is really available to address direction that we may receive from the TAC and the PC in the next several sessions.
And so the rest of the presentation is really focused on giving you guys a sense of the order of magnitude and the the work that would be associated with different levels of of effort. And I guess speaking to that potential administrative amendment that Emily referenced earlier, before we get into the specifics of that, we want to follow up or we want to, excuse me, I'm reading the slide. We want to provide a couple of kind of core categories of things. These sort of definition of terms that are helpful for interpreting the proposals that have been prepared. Report revisions are exactly what they sound like. These are opportunities to address comments about the verbiage tone, you know, providing specific references to other studies and specifically addressing some concerns over the discussion of user fees. That was a part of the original draft report. Anything on the technical modeling category pertains to the quantitative side of dealing with estimation of greenhouse gas emissions reduction or other behavioral and quantitative kinds of insights that that were conducted as part of the development of the, of the original draft document. And then cost estimation is a separate category that this was a, a focus of some discussion during the policy committee work session where there was an interest in providing estimates of the implementation costs that were not delivered in the draft document but would help maybe provide a sense of direction that the committee could provide based on the proposed strategies and their expected costs. And that would tie into the revenue discussion potentially as well.
Then we organize these into, those are kind of types of interventions or changes to the plan that might be considered. We organize these into levels or tiers where the basic level is a low hanging fruit list. These are the items that we expect to complete really no matter what because they're more or less perfunctory but responsive to particular prompts that we've received during both sessions with the the TAC and the pc. The intermediate tier is what it sounds like. It's sort of that middle ground, moderate level of effort. We probably can't implement everything in the intermediate tier with the budgets remaining. In fact we know that we can't. So there's some selection potentially if if there wasn't an amendment to the budget and it may only partially address some of the concerns expressed. A more thorough approach to everything would imply robust revisions where, you know, we would get into the nitty gritty of, of several of the, the key topics of discussion that were front and center. But very few of these are, you know, doable within the remaining budget to bring this all to a head. The what it comes down to is that the basic tier can be accommodated in the existing budget. The intermediate tier could be delivered with all options in included for about an additional 10 to 11 K and the thorough tier would require about 30,000, 35,000 or so for the team to be able to address everything as desired.
I one there's a mention that the, we've got the tip admin bond here is another action item here on the agenda and we might have to move some money around to fund this. I guess how constrained are we on the budget for, for the type of funds that we would make there? Maybe I'm taking that and myself in terms of discussing the next,
Well as we show in the tip we have about $5 million that we are not planning on obligating this fiscal year due to delays in projects. So we have more than enough capacity in the program to absorb the amount that could be needed for this item. If you wanted to go for the thorough, the full.
Other questions or comments? I have a question about the user fees. Is that associated with transit bears or what type of user? Yeah, so that's in the climate action plan there is a suggestion to implement vehicle miles travel fees. So this would be kind of annually when you do your vehicle registration they check your odometer and say based on how many miles you drove, there's a fee associated with that. We had put it at 3 cents per mile. And that results in not only incentives to shift away from that mode for people when they're choosing how to make their trips but also the funding revenue that could then support other actions in this plan. And the policy committee, at least one or two members of the policy committee have indicated that that is not appealing to them at this at this point just as an additional cost for Anchorage residents, which is why it is discussed at length in these options where either we could kind of change how it's presented or we could take them out entirely ob but then the questions remain as kind of where does the resident come from to do these additional things that are gonna plan.
I'm particularly interested in the, the large exchange item about ride share it, seeing what a difference that can make considering that one ride share vehicle takes five to 10 vehicles off the road and that wasn't included in the modeling but I wouldn't make it as identified in this item versus fixed route transit would be more in addition to. And then my second question is, well the first question I was a comment and maybe it's on the next item, but since we're out of money now and you haven't done public comment, how are we going to address the public comments coming in and should we just add money so that we don't come back and ask for more money? Because it seems like whenever we do a planning project and you run out of money at the end we asking for public comment is not a good look so, right.
Yeah. Yeah. So that was in kind of the first set that Alex presented I think at the top of the remaining tasks here. So the remaining tasks are in the budget, we're still planning to do those with the current budget after accounts for those. Then Alex was kind of talking about there's very little budget remaining and so we would need to add for anything else. So absolutely we have a stakeholder meeting number three that we're gonna do so that they can take a look at the draft plan once we're more comfortable that it's in more of a final form. We have a public open house plan and then we also have the cost, the public comment meeting, which we are gonna do a 45 day public comment period and then have time and budget to address those comments. So yeah, absolutely not just kind of pushing that by the wayside no matter what we're doing that and then the committees can direct us to make other changes on top of that with with that as we possibly,
Questions or comments from the committee and we'll move over then to public comments. Are there any members of the public like six, please state your name and you have three minutes. Mark Eisenman, Anchorage Area Planner for DOT, I was just curious if the cost estimate included was just the cost for the, the added contractual stuff and if so just to consider that there'll be other incidentals like states indirect and city limit direct that need to be added to that cost puzzle, which I'm sure
You'd like me to address that. Sure, go ahead Bethany. Yeah so the, the costs that are, the dollar amounts that are on this memo and that Alex was mentioning are just what we need to pay the consultant we have. I went through and looked through some of those options are either or, so either you can do kind of an intermediate change on the VMT fees or you could do a large change so they don't all sum up together if that makes sense. We choose one or the other, either or options. So if I summed up all the thorough changes plus kind of the remaining intermediate changes on top of what we have already and then add 10% for contingencies just 'cause you never know and then add the ICAP and the overhead and then at a little more wiggle room just because you never know, we would suggest $40,000 to address everything here in a thorough and comfortable way that along with the contracted extension should be feasible. So that yes we're accounting for those, those overhead fees on top of that and that's kind of what we're looking at And you know there are pretty substantive changes in here so it's not just a matter of making it better, it is a matter of making it different. So that's something for the committees to consider in providing that direction.
Yeah, that would be the next action item. I guess my big thing is would you want any of the intermediate changes that are kind of standalone items as well that aren't part of the overall cost? Because there's some that's the same in full but then there's some that's only in the intermediate. So we would need to know if you wanted the intermediate individual items as well.
Maybe if I, so the, the areas that overlap are in the basic changes. Number four, for the bus fuels it was just clarifying language. Alternatively, in the intermediate changes, number nine is actually updating the modeling regarding that. And then in the intermediate changes 13 A and B are in either or. So you can do either option one or option two for the intermediate changes for the ENT fees or you can do large change number 18, which is removing the the VMT fees and rerunning the model and reevaluating him. We still get to the goal which is the, that's definitely the, the biggest change in many of options
I think the intent is if we remove the user fees, either we need to explain new revenue would need to come from somewhere. Maybe here's a brief list of some options or removing those options that would require the additional revenue from the model to say assuming no fees, assuming no revenue, assuming kind of businesses usual funding, here's what can be done. So that may need to be part of what we iron out with these revisions and we can certainly take direction on that.
And maybe part of the question is it'll still explain what the VMT fees are and have some explanation in there. It's nothing. I completely scrub it but you can't see anything about it. Right. It will still explain these are VMT user fees, these are what they would look like but then it won't recommend that it won't be part of the
Yeah, that's my question. I think probably the most we would do is say you know, here's some strategies that are not currently funded, more funding would be needed and then here's maybe some options. So that could come from either property taxes, it could come from some other form of taxes, it could come from VMT fees without really going into any depth on any one of those. Just kind of a, here's some options to explore further. Not recommending in one of those but acknowledging that they're there.
If I may interject there, the intermediate EMT option one nominally does re retain discussion of them. I don't know if that could potentially be an opportunity to say well do that, don't remove, like don't do option B or sorry option two but then also update the modeling per item. I think it was 18 but the the last one because I, I do think that there's sort of a difference between how things are modeled and versus how they're discussed in the text and and maybe there's an opportunity to cover both with those options but in case that's helpful. So
The intent of this is not to override the preferences of the policy committee, it's just to make sure that the paper trail is maintained in the plan and the study is a study. And so I think the recommendation out of this is not that we want this to be factored into into the final recommendations but just that there's a paper trail to easily explain how this can be done, what the implications are. But it's not the recommendation of how we Correct. Correct. Thank you. Great.
Are there discussion on that item rather than, are there any opposed that amendments hearing then opposed that amendment has now been incorporated into the motion? Are there any other amendments or discussion? Okay, curious during no more discussion are there any opposed to approve the motion as amended? Okay, hearing none that motion as amended is approved. We are now moving on to the next action item five B, the funding program tip admin mod six. That yours Aaron? Yes it is. Second. Hey everybody before you is tip admin mod number six. I hope it's the last admin mod we do since we are almost running out of time for this fiscal year but we'll see. I can't guarantee it. We have a couple items before you, maybe before you go through those with the, the motion we just made, are there numbers they need to calculate so that you can feed that into us? No, I think we're good with the 40,000 numbers still. Okay.
We got it. We got it ready to go. You guys are ready? So we have a couple of, we have a couple of items before you. One is HSIP program, A Change to the Gambel and Ingra Street Overhead signal Indication upgrades project. They need a little bit of additional funding for utilities construction at FY 26. So there's an increase of $351,000 for that project. And then there's a change to the national highway system, Glenn highway and highway interchange preservational operational improvements. I missed some changes to this project as part of amendment number four. I apologize to DOT for that. There's a lot back and forth so we have some options we may move forward on how to better improve our coordination on these requested changes. So I wanna say thank you for Galen for having a discussion on that.
We appreciate his input. So we were not able to add the utilities and construction funding 'cause it is over the admin mod threshold. So we were able to only add the design amount $200,000 for the design work in FY 26. So these items are before you, this is an admin mod so it does not require a separate public comment period. Just recommend and review by the technical advisory committee and final approval by the policy committee staff recommendation the technical advisory committee is to recommend to the policy committee approval of tip admin mod number six. Thank you. Are there any questions or comments from the committee
For the, the sake of the motion? What have we landed on for the previous item in order to complete data section item as I think that's higher. 50,000. 50,000? Yeah so that includes more buffer for responding to public code. All of the things that you all just recommended. A little bit of wiggle overhead, all that stuff. Thanks.
Which table would that be in? Table four plans and studies. It is for the AMATS climate action plan, which I believe is right at the top of the second page. I'm trying to find it real quick. Okay, so three table four. Yeah right at the top of the second page. So page 13 of the PBI. So it's the A command action plan and we would just add that money to the FY 26 here and we have enough match and kind of match to, we will have to figure that out. That is something to keep in mind that we do not have cash match for these projects. Everything is in kind. So we will have to rely on our partners to help us provide that in kind match for the additional work, additional review, that kinda stuff. So we be leaning heavily on some of you folks, not you here in the room, but your staff to help us with that. Are there other questions or comments from the committee? Are there any public comments there? No public comments. Entertain a motion for the committee? Anyone wanna venture motion
I I move to recommend to the policy committee the approval of the 2023-2026 funding program and the, in the form of the admin mod #6. And as part of that motion, I'd like to add and edit to table four to increase the funding to the climate action plan. To cover the changes that we just discussed in our previous action and to fund it to $50,000.
Nope. We'll add it to the memo for your recommendation to the policy committee. Are there any amendments or discussions from the committee? Is any any anyone opposed to the motion? There is none. That motion disapproved. Okay. Moving right along to item five C, the HSIP program. AMATS requests for 2026.
Okay so we are in HSIP nomination season central region DOT as asked to suggest any projects that we might want to ask them to nominate. So they do the actual nominations but they are happy to take ideas from us. So we had a work session a couple weeks ago about this. There's some projects were discussed and in the meantime, staff had also went back after the work session kind of indicated general support for those candidates. We went back to the crash data and specifically looked at the 2020 to 2024 data, which is what the HSIP process will, will look at to screen projects and score them. So it's important to make sure your project is supported within that timeframe before it would proceed with HSIP. Based on that, we did eliminate I think two that we had talked about previously. Three from that work session because they had previously been hotspots, but during that 2020 to 2024 period there were not enough enough fatalities or series injuries for those to be scored as ranked projects for the HSIP.
Meaning they would be much less likely they could be selected. So that leaves us with the first three projects that are listed in the memo here, which you all can consider if you support those as our request. And then I did provide, just for context, that sort of last block of projects at the end of the memo. This includes projects that we had discussed last year that did not end up being nominated. So just to follow up on why those were not nominated and at the time. And then we're not recommending nominating those this time because on this round EOT is really looking for smaller, quicker projects and some of those that we had talked about previously were a little bit too big and there's one that was recently reconstructed and so they don't have the after data to see what has happened as a result of that previous HSIP project one has an ongoing project under SS four A and then there's those three that don't have the, the crash numbers in the last five years to be supported. So if you have questions on any of those that we're not recommending, we can certainly talk through those. And otherwise maybe focusing on those first three projects to see if you would like to recommend that we suggest those.
Yeah, just remember that. Thanks. Yeah, so as a paper copy and there are some on that table if anybody in the room want you all have one, we prepared that just in the last few days a list of HSIT projects that are currently in the tip and their current status. So those are funded, they're program, they're in DTS, HSI program as well as in the tips. And just to let you know, you know those are moving forward and what their current status is. So that's maybe just more of a reassurance that those are there. You don't need to nominate those. Those again and we moving forward. Great.
Okay? Yeah, I wanted second that. I really appreciate this and I just wanted to ask, is this available to the public online? Just part of this meeting document? We didn't have it in time for that. I dunno if there's an option to do that after the fact. If I had it now I would pull it up. I'm sorry.
But what we normally do is if we get documents after we post, we can go back and put it on the website for anybody who's watching this meeting later and it's like, well what are they talking about? And it's available there on the website where the agenda is. We have additional document locations.
(Committee discussion on the typo of Tudor Road in one of the projects on the memo) So I just wanna draw attention to one thing on here that the date on here you are funded in 2026 for construction construction installation in 2026 expected in 20 26, 27. So I know there's been a lot of talk about quick improvements through our transportation system, especially safety improvements and I think that this is what is happening and maybe we got up to a little bit of a slow start, but it's really exciting to see these upcoming projects slated construction, that center right next as well. So thank you for handing this out. It was fresh air transportation discussions.
Yeah, that Thank you. Thank you. Member Babb, are any other questions or comments from, I have a question and then maybe just some comments. My first question is, there's a sentence that says if MOA roads are to be considered, DOT central region has asked for a formal letter of support from the mayor's office. I'm wondering does that imply that there's still time for MOA to select and nominate some more projects with the HSIP? No. I'm just wondering why that was in memo. Is it a prompt or is it just a statement? Yeah, that's, that is a request from central region that if there is a meeting road that AMAs would like to request that there is a letter of support from the mayor's office. So in the first three projects was secured just project number three 15th, that's in Emily Road and they just wanna make sure that local leadership is on board with this before they proceed with the nomination.
In terms of nominating other projects by the MOA can't speak to that. I would suggest coordinating with Anna Rose and to make sure you know, kind of what their timeline is. I we're getting close to the wire. Okay, thank you. If we may have some other ones that be looking on and and vet it through our mayor's office as well. So, okay. My other comment, just for awareness p and e is working on a project that will impact 32nd and C street and that's associated with our 32nd, 33rd Midtown corridor project. We're at a 95% design phase and at that intersection we're still looking at making sure that we have directional ramps at each corner of the intersection. So that's one of the adjustments that we're currently making. But I don't see that it necessarily has to be removed from that segment. I think all things in that particular segment should still go forward.
But just for awareness, especially in the past, if you know some of the things that is working on that may not be known by all and especially if we have new people and just for the public's sake, I just wanna bring transparency forward. Yeah and if I can just quickly, HSIP does is very open to working with existing projects to kind of build upon them and bring that extra funding for additional improvements and make sure that everything's coordinated and happening, you know, and conflicting. So that's really good to keep in mind. Hopefully that could be complimentary. Great, thanks. Thank you. Thanks Member do, are there questions or comments from the committee?
I guess just a follow up on that, going over closely on that provided move forward an HSIP project. Could we do call combined projects but a lot of times those are DOT projects and so I don't know if we can find a DOT project but we definitely be able to work together on, so there's no been any kind of rework overlap.
I mean coordination always will happen. I'm sure it's, it's a rather expensive project so I don't have a firm timeline of when, when what construction year we're targeting at the moment. But at least I can share that we're at a 95% design phase. Any other question or comments? Any, are there any comments from the public? Okay, go ahead. State your name and read your Sure. I'm Erin Baldwin Day. Just a couple of things. I, I do wanna point out that a lot of the, the pedestrian treatments that have been suggested here are also, they, some of them become less possible without adjustments to speed limits. And so I just wanna continue to bring that forward that there is an ongoing tension between what is good for pedestrians and what that means in terms of implementation. If we marked also changing speed same time, I appreciate that this is gonna be before the public particularly on Muldoon and Tudor in June and so I, I hope that there are a lot of folks who turn out to to discuss that very thing on that sort of contiguous corridor.
And then on the same, sort of the same topic or related, I think that I'm delighted about the channelization on Tudor that's happening on the east side but I also wanna point out that if we want to reduce ankle crashes and head on collision on Tudor, I will continue to continue to bring up that MacInness at Tudor is one of the places where that kind of intervention is also needed. So really appreciate that there is a conversation about potentially including that in the tutor interchange project. Also just wanna be mindful that this, this body and the policy committee have talked at length about scope creep and how that can derail projects that are in process and so advocating for potentially a standalone project if that is appropriate and possible in the future. Thanks.
Okay we have a motion by member Kohlhaas can try a second, second, second Amendment member Babb. Are there any amendments or discussion on the motion? Okay, hearing no discussion. Are there any opposed to approving the motion hearing None opposed that motion is approved. And we'll move to the next item on our agenda, which is item five DOT&PF Tribal Cons Consultant Policy. Hello everybody. So this is me. So this is the item for the DOT&PF consultation policy update as you may recall or may not because you might have missed it. So after policy committee meeting last month, DOT came and gave a quick presentation on the effort that they're doing to update their consultation policy with the tribes. Their policy is currently from 20 2002 so they're looking at providing an update to it. So we provided some information for you in the memo about what was discussed at that meeting and what was talked about by the project manager At that meeting, staff was given an opportunity to review the consultation policy.
It's out for a 45 day tribal focused review period from March through May 11th. So even though the comment period will end before the policy committee sees this, DOT said they'll still accept any comments from Amad active in fact. So staff did have an opportunity to review it and we have no comments on it. We'd like to thank DOT for giving us the opportunity to review the policy and that we will go ahead and utilize any final product that comes out of this to help inform any update that we want to do to our consultation process, which we'll be talking about at a informational item later. So this item is for you, amen. Staff request the TAC, review the policy and provide any comments to the policy committee if you have any. Thank you. Okay, thanks Erin. Are there any questions or comments from the committee? Okay, are there any comments from the public seeing none in the room or or online? What is the, will you want information?
Alright. Okay. Other than not hearing any additional, I think you did a great job with the motion. Are there any opposed motion? Okay, hearing none, that motion is approved. That gets us through all of our action items for the day. We can move on to the informational items. First one is six a, the Academy of Vanguard Drive project presentation and that turned over to go ahead and turn it over to the project. Okay, we'll turn to the team for your presentation.
Yes, so I'm Julia Hanson, I'm the project manager for Alaska DOC. I'm here with S from HDL who is our assigned manager on the Academy Drive and Vanguard Drive area improvement project. We're here today to give you an update on the project and also solicit feedback on which directions we want to go given some of the changes we found in the response. Thank you for having us everybody. Once again, my name is Stephanie MorMilo and I am with HDL Engineering consultants. So I'm the consultant project manager on project. So just a brief overview, we have come to you before but just to kind of rehash where we are, this project is going to realign Academy Drive and Vanguard Drive between Abbot Road and Brighton Drive and it's going to improve safety for all users. The pro the, the project will include obviously road realignment. We are proposing non-motorized facilities on both sides of the road. Improved lighting, there will be intersection improvements, drainage is a large component 'cause there are some drainage concerns in this kind of whole area of the world. And there will be some right of way acquisitions, some have already occurred, utility realizations and then other roadside improvements such as striping and like I said, roadway lighting.
So last year we did our 35% design recommendations and we went in front of the planning and zoning commission and went through our preliminary design report and this was kind of a conceptual layout that was shown at that time. That includes our selected typical section and also shows some recommended intersection improvements based on the design. I can say actually based on the traffic analysis at that time. So I'm just bringing this in front of you to, to remind you what has been kind of shown to the public before there was a caveat with this. We were very clear and when we went to the public and there was a lot of discussion about this that really the signalize intersection at Abbott at the have the road intersection was only warranted if the extension under the highway were to occur and primarily with the interchange analysis that was proposed there before.
So the reason why we're back here today to have some conversation with you is last month you had a presentation from the Seward Highway O'Malley to diamond project and there have been some changes with that. So the hip bones connected to knee bone where knee bone and we're trying to make sure that we're staying in step with that project. So we're doing some reevaluation. Next slide please. So this is the typical section that was selected and this is actually still what we are recommending it is the roadway actually from that time to this time has been reclassified. It was originally a minor material, it is now class one collector, but we kind of knew that with the way the road was going and we wanted to design it to that anyway as far as the operations go, so this is consistent with a collector style road as far as lane width go, number of lanes the the one difference actually there really is no difference. We designed it to a collector standard so this is still what we are recommending for the roadway and we have received actually a lot of positive feedback from the community and from the agencies because we are designing in as much snow storage as possible. We have separated facilities on both sides and the improved drainage and improved lighting is actually I seen very positively as well.
So we've done a lot of public involvement over the years. We did just recently go to the transportation fair, had quite a few people come to our table and started having discussions with them about the changed assumptions that are coming between us. So we had some discussion, the transportation fair as we were beginning this reevaluation and we are also coming to talk to the amass committees to get some feedback from you as well. So the feedback we have received to date, like we said that non-motorized improvements, yay, everybody has supported 'em. Both residents, I shouldn't say local residents and just area wide residents. We have folks come that use the area and they support it from the local residents. We have heard continuously about concerns with speeding the need for traffic following in the area. We have received both verbal and ran support for that roundabout option at the UNICEF intersection of Academy Vanguard just because we can design it in such a way to keep traffic flow at about 20 miles an hour in the nearby vicinity and it's mid corridor for our project.
So it kind of keeps things moving slower. We've heard a lot about the challenge of taking left turns from the side street on TT road and there is a crash pattern there. So that is something that we are looking at how to address that with the change in recommendations because if that connection under the highway does not occur, we no longer warrant having a signalize intersection and if, and we want to potentially do something to mitigate those left turning crashes. So we'll be looking at some options. Residents also have asked about the remnant right of way that may re remain out there. There have been in some of the acquired areas already in some of the areas public dumping issues. And so they've asked what's gonna happen with those remnant areas. It's a concern that they have. And then lastly, they've asked if there is a future project to upgrade Vanguard. We've received that comment a lot and I've recommended to quite a few members to go to the community council and ask for them to nominate a project because I don't know whether or not it is within the capital improvement plan for the municipality Enbridge, but it is a comment that we've proceeded quite a bit with our project.
So like I said, revised assumptions, the Seward Highway is changing their scope of work due to change in desires in the community and also funding constraints. Previously there was a planned interchange that was going to happen at the Scooter Academy location that is now unknown as far as the connections, I know that what I listened last month to see the recommendations and that there is potentially support for having just a local connection for the motorized and non-motorized without actually having to interchange. But that that there would have to be funding changes to the project to be able to accommodate that. That the priorities for the Seward Highway project are actually looking at a two-way frontage load for frighten and then some improvements of the O'Malley interchange. So that changes our underlying assumptions and our traffic projections. And so while we're still recommending the same typical section, some of our intersectional alternatives need to be kind of revisited. So next slide.
This is the intersection of Academy and Vanguard. So this is the realigned intersection and like I said, there are quite a few people in the community that are supportive of the roundabout option here. But to be fair with the reduced traffic volumes in this area, a roundabout is not warranted. The, the amount of traffic that is there can be accommodated with a key intersection as shown on the lower left hand side where Vanguard would come into the side of it would be stop control. So one of the things I guess we're soliciting feedback as you're sitting here looking at this is your thoughts on this. Now this caveat with this project is that corner parcel where that intersection sits has been purchased, it was previously purchased, there are some minor impacts to the parcel directly north of it and it does vary between the two intersection options as far as what that right of way impact would be.
But these options alone don't warrant additional right of way, you know, beyond that, that corner parcel as far as that's nothing new, I'll say that's not a new new thing. So I guess I'll leave it open for questions. So this is the intersection, both of these options were shown in the 35% DSR the, the reports we brought for the planning and zoning commission showing that either alternative will work. Next slide at the Abbott road intersection, like we said, a signal is not warranted. We do not have that additional increase in traffic but there is a left turn crashing issue and actually a through crash as well. So we are evaluating to pull through looking at level of service and just looking at potential projected reductions in crash patterns. And these are some of the options that can be considered one of the benefits. One of the things that we have heard from both the community and from the agencies is trying to find an option to help facilitate pedestrian crossings at this intersection. And so one of the, the considerations as you can see in both these options is potentially adding a pedestrian refuge here in the median and having that as an option. And we will be also in our traffic analysis evaluating whether or not any sort of signalization or something can be supported for this location. We have not completed that analysis yet, but we are in the process of doing so right now to see what other additional improvements may be triggered at this location.
So we right now are in the design phase. Obviously we did 35%. We are trying to move towards plans in hand but we need to resolve some of these unknowns in the meantime. And with the changes in the tip, this project is right now illustrative so is beyond the current FY 27 FY 30 tip. So we have a little bit of time but we do need to keep moving forward to be able to acquire the necessary right of way to complete the project to be prepared for this project. This is just kind of letting you know everything we've done to date. We have completed the, the environmental document. We are working on revised traffic analysis and moving forward the design and also doing other technical studies as far as geotechnical. We have very high groundwater in this area and so looking at some of the monitoring out there, which also the h and h is something that is a big component of this project and this area, arrogant the world. And that's everything I'd love to answer any questions you may have and solicit any feedback thoughts you have.
Okay, thank you for the presentation. Very informed, I appreciate the graphics and some of the line work and getting a up to date understanding of where the project team is and how it relates to the other project underway with the project. I guess the, the two areas that I'm wondering about is, you know, if we were to look at it from what is the most friendly from a non federalized perspective, what are the roundabout versus the stop control, if we could get good traffic calming features in there and we don't have to answer it now, but those are just some of my thoughts. And then that also goes along with the head crossing at avid, you know, again, just trying to achieve what is the most head friendly, non-motorized crossing experience that we can gain, whether it's signalize or if it is pet, considering that drug, would it be a major arterial? So I don't have to answer, but those are some of my comments I guess so. So you're interested in in group safety, pedestrians and traffic one? Yes. Okay. I'll add to that. I know our maintenance staff in the winter really has challenges at roundabouts with snow removal and I know that they're not preferred for people who have to navigate the world with visual impairments. Roundabouts are really tough. So I think when considering that maintenance providers thumbs down on roundabouts and then universal design considerations would be great. Thank you.
Other questions or comments from, I think just one comment on the, the pedestrian crossing. I'm glad to see that you're taking a look at that because I know a lot of people do actually cross their foot. The, the seeds there are relatively high as well and it's a corner, so there's a lot of things working against safety for pedestrians there. Anything, any improvements that the project team might be able to suggest? Additional light signal lights, pedestrian light or something. Something like that. I would definitely encourage if I may respond to, so we are using the current Alaska traffic manual to evaluate it and one of the things that we have looked at, like I said, we haven't finalized, but, and actually as the assembly member mentioned earlier, when it comes to speed, usually you want to be at a posted speed of 35 miles per hour or less if you're really gonna consider a lot of those electrical things and be, and this does have a posted speed of 40. There is, I guess a larger discussion because I don't think that you could effectively just reduce the speed in just one segment so you're looking at a bigger area. But I think it's something that we're definitely going to pass the mention in our evaluation of traffic analysis of just saying if additional things are considered, these are some of the things that also need to be considered interesting. Thank you.
Maybe a question I have for please, Stephanie, when you talk about warrants for signal versus warrants for roundabouts, curious if you could speak to, you know, does not begin a warrant and to not do it and then also just the safety considerations that come into deploy comes to the right about versus a 10 intersection or a signal versus doing just a cross section.
Yeah, I think that's always something that, just because something is not warranted doesn't mean you're prohibited from doing so. If there are other reasons to do an installation so it doesn't meet the volume thresholds and, and even though there is a crash pattern there, it doesn't meet the crash thresholds to signal, you know, to, to warrant a signal at that location. However, there, there are other considerations. Usually when you're looking at traffic, the system as far as system management goes and perhaps, you know, to support non-motorized crossings if you have a full signal as far as that protection goes. And then for a roundabout, if it is more of level of service, you know, as far as consideration goes, like I said, oftentimes it's a, that intersection is low enough volume that it can operate well either way. But the roundabout does have added safety benefits of one, slowing people down. Two, it literally makes key crashes impossible unless somebody drives straight through the center of it, which has only happened once to my knowledge in the state.
But it, it has other safety benefits and I hear visually impaired. It is a challenge. It is a single lane roundabout and one of the positives we have heard at least is there is a pedestrian refuge that we can provide in the middle. So you're only crossing one lane of traffic and then crossing the other lane of traffic. And so it simplifies the pedestrian crossing at that location as far as that goes. 'cause we have been kind of looking at the pros cons as far as non-motorized go. And to be fair, there are pros and cons for both alternatives and that's the challenge.
Yes, the signal has much more long term implications when it comes to the electrical phones and the cost of maintenance. And we did talk to, to street maintenance about the, the roundabout and they actually have said that they, they're getting used to them, they have more of them and that they like the continuous flow options because they're not having to close an intersection to remove snow, that they can actually keep other traffic moving as long as we design in adequate size.
Thank Stephanie. Thank you. Are other questions or comments from Ms Given this is not an action item? Once it goes to public comment then we're gonna move on to the next information item. So now the time we have any more questions, ask the hearing are no more comments or questions from the committee? Are there any public comments on this item?
Okay, so then we'll move to the next information, item six B, the Tudor Road interchange project presentation, and we'll turn it over to the project team for this present. Good afternoon everybody. My name's Galen Jones. I'm with Alaska DOT, I'm joined by Steve Noble who's with Dowl. Dowl's been hired by the department to form design, environmental and public involvement services. So we're here to talk about the Tudor road interchange project. We got a slideshow online. Yeah, next slide please. Thank you. So the project limits are on the north end. We're gonna be going about halfway to Benson Boulevard on the west side. We'll be going to Old Seward highway intersection on the east side to MacInness Street. And then on the south side we'll be going to roughly the Campbell Creek Crossing. Also on this map I wanted to point out there's some environmental areas such as the helm Louise McDowell Sanctuary in the northeast corner there indicated by the number of one that we will be avoiding impacts too. Next slide.
So the purpose of the of the project kind of broken out into three categories here. First bridge. So we're replacing the aging bridge, it was built in 1976. We wanna increase the vertical clearance on the Seward Highway to mitigate gate bridge strikes. Right now it's a couple feet too low, then minimum design, design standards. And we wanna widen the bridge to accommodate the needs of all user groups. As far as safety and operations go, we wanna prove traffic flow, reduce crash risk, and reduce queuing that we see pretty bad queuing on the bridge. And then active transportation wise, we wanna separate wide and enhance those types of facilities and improve safety and connectivity as Tudor Road is a major east west corridor. Next slide.
Talk about funding for a minute here. So currently we have $5 million for design that's split into federal and state dollars and that's just for preliminary design to get us through the environmental document completion. And future wise we're gonna, all those phases are gonna be obligated with federal funds. And then just to highlight that this is coming outta the National Highway Performance Program and it's 93.4, covered 93.4% by federal dollars with the rest of the statement. Next slide please. A little bit of background about the interchange in the MS corridor study in the 1982. I just wanna highlight this was identified as a critical regional connection and then the Midtown congestion relief health study in 2020 identified this as the most congested and one of the most congested and crash prone locations in Alaska. Next slide. Please talk a little bit about the interchange, existing interchange conditions. So we got 50,000 vehicles on Seward Highway, 36,500 vehicles on Tudor Road. So that makes this the busiest intersection in the state. Compressed dot, it's a compressed diamond interchange, which was a popular design back in the 19 and fifties, fifties and sixties in suburban areas. And it's not working super well these days.
Non-motorized facilities. We've got narrow four foot sidewalks on the bridge, pretty much no separation from traffic right up against the curb line there. We don't have a crossing of McKinna Street in that, you know, that's an important intersection in terms of identifying safety improvements. And then as I mentioned, the bridge is aging. It's from 1976 over 50 years old. And interestingly due to the type of piles, there's a little picture there that shows the, the B frame piles. It's, it is a little bit more vulnerable to seismic activity and that would be more catastrophic on this sort of corridor or more problematic because of the heavy traffic and because it's a critical east plus connection, evacuation routes, things like that. So things that we'll be considering in the future. Next slide please.
Existing interchange. Continuing with some, well to talk about the interchange of bridge issues. So things I haven't mentioned yet. So it's a medium capacity interchange. It was built in the 1970s. Well what we're seeing flat or even decline in traffic or population from, from here. Looking into the future, there's been a lot of traffic growth since the 1970. So this is under designed, well, it's under capacity for what the needs are now and it's, it's the design doesn't suit the, the operations that are needed now. So without being bogged down in all the details here, I'll talk about how we are addressing some of these issues later. And I'll just go the next slide so I'm not repeating myself some active transportation consideration. So that's for bike and pet users. Just wanna to highlight there's no bicycle facilities and the sidewalks are really narrow on the bridge so there's no bike lanes and it's not necessarily line enough. We don't have shared use pathways on the bridge now. And then there's unmarked crosswalk, most notably at McIn Street that's gonna come up over and over again the presentation. And then wanted to highlight the curve ramps and some of the signalization harvest where it is not, does not meet EG standards currently. So we'll get those up to standard. Next slide.
Safety performance. Just wanted to highlight on this slide that the intersection crash intersection crash rates near are near or exceeding the statewide averages. So the top numbers in those boxes are the intersection crash rates specific to the circle of intersections and then the statewide average for that intersection type is below it. And so you'll see there at or above each of those, we have four fatalities shown in the corridor. Three of those were non-motorized fatalities. So our, our select alternative and improvements really need to highlight improving safety for those types of resources. Next slide please.
The next slide just shows some examples of, you know, the long queueing. We have the top left one. Doesn't do necessarily a good job of this, but really what's happening is, 'cause there's only one turn lane in each direction on the bridge, those are backing up through the intersections and then blocking the ramp, turning movements. Okay, next slide please. So because of the 36 interchange project is so close and it's also under design at the moment, we wanna just, you know, ensure everybody that we are coordinating with that design. That design does include shared use pathway. Shared use pathway is on the east and west side of the sewer highway. And one of the main benefits of that is gonna connect the Campbell Creek trail up into Midtown will be a great benefit.
And then also wanted to make sure everybody knows we will, that one will get, the first six interchange will get built after the Tudor road interchange. So we're not disrupting traffic and, and local business access and things like that all at the same time. Okay, next slide please. We're gonna jump into the alternatives analysis and cruise through this. We looked at four primary interchange forms and the first one is a tight diamond. Next slide. Next one is a single point interchange concept. Next slide is a diverging diamond interchange concept. Next slide. Displaced left turn interchange concept. Okay, next slide please. And so we did a compatibility assessment for each of these and they're graded in terms of their compatibility for this specific inter interchange. So blue optimal, yellow fair red, red had the lowest performance. And then we looked at capacity, the footprint, active transportation suitability, allowing those ramp ramp movements which is important 'cause of the frontage road on the south side.
And then also if there's an overhead vehicle that can't, that is on the sword highway, they can't make it under the Tudor Road bridge, they need to go up and over. So they need to be able to get between, between the, the ramps across Tudor and then compatibility, compatibility with the 36th Avenue interchange. And then construct ability. So how much traffic disruption are we gonna have during construction and then our ability to maintain and operate the, the interchange. So as you can see, tight diamond had the, the, the highest rating there and the sort of qualitative assessment. So that is what was presented. This was presented to the public into stakeholders. And we have a report about our whole alternative analysis that is gonna be posted on the website shortly. Next slide please.
As I mentioned, we had a interchange workshop and an open house. We presented all the, the pros and cons of all the interchange options and, and our analysis. And so we'll be able to check that out in more detail online if you want. Next slide, Luis. So the preferred alternative is the tight diamond, the turn exchange concept. I'll talk more about why and the advantage of that. And so this is the interchange that we're advancing in the environmental document. Next slide please. So just throwing up the, the preliminary bridge cross section here just so you can, and I'll, and I'll just highlight the main differences here. Moving from left to right, so there will be a wider pathway. So going from that four foot sidewalk to a 10 foot shared use pathway with traffic barrier and pedestrian railing on the top, adding an eight foot shoulder that can be used for snow storage also, it increases pedestrian comfort, gets your farther away from the traffic and then there will be like a, a sort, some sort of pedestrian barrier and screening like a safety fence on the outside of the bridge.
And then adding a turn lane in each direction that will reduce two lengths so they don't back up into those terminal intersections on either side of the bridge. And then what's nice is on the opposite side of those turn lanes at the terminal intersections, that results in a wider pedestrian revolution for for not motorized users crossing there. Next slide please. So we'll talk about the improvement. So, so why did we choose this and what benefits does this tight diamond exchange form have? I mean how does it address the issues that we identified earlier? So it, it improves site distance so and that, that's just gonna be one of the benefits of the project to general. We're gonna flatten these sort of crest curves coming up and over the bridge. So that'll improve the visibility to see people crossing the road, whether that's vehicles or non-motorized users.
When we widen the shoulders on the bridge, that actually moves those barriers on the outside of the bridge out of the they, they're currently blocking some site distance at the intersection so that increases visibility and can reduce crashes in terms of non non-motorized improvements. Converting those narrow sidewalks to wider shared use pathways, adding those safety buffers, pedestrian barriers and refuges that are ont road for crossings there that don't exist now. And then we're investigating a signal ice crossing in McGinnis Drive. There's some, you know, there's the fire station that's right there. And then in addition there's also bus stops on the north side and the south side of the road and we can add a signaled intersection there that will actually improve operations at the interchange and then facilitate a safe crossing for users there. And then we also are investigating on pedestrian under crossing, we talked about how 36 project is gonna put shared use pathways on the, on both sides of the Seward Highway.
And so to facilitate that connection to the Campbell Creek Trail, looking at a a, a wide comfortable pedestrian under crossing under ER road on the west side there operationally there, you know this, this does the best job of mitigating turn lane queuing from blocking intersections the adjacent intersections and then squaring up those ramp angles is much better for traffic flow. So currently there're acute angles and if we square those up to Tudor Road and you can get a better traffic flow onto off of those, those ramps and then you know, better snow storage and adding new storm drain facilities and water storm water retention basins and then not on here I wanted to mention likely replacing the high tower lightings with the, the standard height LED luminaries that aren't those high tower lights. And then next slide please. This is the last slide. So we'll talk about schedule real quick.
So if you look at that dash vertical line, that's where we're at. We'll last week the concept report for the project was approved by the Planning and voting commission and we're, we're continuing preliminary design and working towards environmental documents. We'll get into final design later this year after the environmental documents approved and then we'll do environmental permitting right of way acquisition if needed. It's not looking like we're gonna have any acquisitions or relocations as part of this project, which is really nice. Got a good amount of right of way already and then construction plan for year 2029 and that should last stick with us on proceed. So that's it. Happy to answer any questions. Okay. Are any questions or comments from the committee?
This is great. As you know and mentioned someone sanctuary there, our partners at Great Land Trust have been watching this project really closely and I'm sure they're gonna be happy to hear about the, the concept that's being moved forward on. We receive a lot of comment from the neighbors north of the project about drainage issues. A lot of them have have drawn their own conclusions as to why they have drainage problems at their properties. Happy to meet and describe to you some of those things if you're interested. But I'm sure the more water treatment that's able to happen on site or in your property adjacent to the site will be very welcome by those neighbors, the area. Yeah. So just a little heads that rather than neighbor that Yeah that's good. Great. Yeah.
One question that I have, I know that the Fish Creek culvert the damage to a couple years ago I recall had it dip is there is is where the fish creek is going, is that something that you have thoughts or plans or tracking or is it far enough along to have anything you could share kind of with how that inter place Yeah, think you big question. So fish creek culvert, it actually goes like right under the what t and then it goes down the middle of the highway in the median. So we're looking at the condition of the pipe and if it needs to get replaced basically, but more just depending kind. Okay.
The other thought that I was is the 36th Avenue interchange and tutor. I recall some concepts that were considering potential graded ramps or other ways to, you know, the interplay between this. Curious what this asset that you're looking at, how that might come into play with with that. Yeah, that's a good question. The 36th Avenue interchange project is proposing braided ramps as you mentioned down near Tudor. So if you're headed northbound, I don't know if if the person online, I think it's Sam controlling it wants to go back to that side. But if you're headed northbound you would get off of the sewage highway just north of the Tudor Bridge and it would go under that, that off ramp so that we're on the left side of the screen. The screen there, it would actually go under the Tudor road entrance ramp that is going from Tudor onto the Sword Highway and pretty much just the, the, the mirror of that for the southbound traffic on the west side.
So the idea would be to build those Tudor ramps first. It's more of like a construction phasing exercise. It's unfortunate 'cause you know there is a little bit of rework there. But then coming in as part of the 36th Avenue project and then building those bridges, we are actually taking a close look. We've made some design modifications since the 35% report that went to the mining zoning emission. We've made some design modifications to avoid ride of away acquisition and relocations. So for example, the sushi restaurant up at 36th and old Seward, we were able to move that. We ramped that that southbound move ramp, we were able able to move it north to an intersection with 34th Avenue and avoid that restaurant and and requiring a relocation. The reason I mention that is because it actually provides more spacing between the southbound and on ramp and the southbound off ramp.
So we're looking to see if we can actually eliminate that braided ramp on the west side there, saves some money and simplify the design and actually bring in and have less impacts over the university of all of our And and the comment about a separate or separated crossing it Okay at the pedestrian, is that the, on the west side of all the ramps and everything? Yeah, that's correct. So it, it would get installed as part of the tutor road project. We'd have a pedestrian under cross in there that we can up the tutor and then connect to that longitudinal, the north south path she use pathway and so a tutor would probably just install some sort of like loop or something that goes from the lower pedestrian path up to tier road and then the 36 project would come along and then tie in that the rest of that connection up to 36 Avenue. Thanks. Are there other questions or comments?
Comment, thank you for the very thorough presentation. I think your graphics were very helpful in providing good clarity and some overall concepts of the alternatives and the preferred one I just had a question about, so it's the buffer for pedestrian comfort and snow storage. I'm glad that that built into the design because it's nothing like having a pedestrian facility and then having nowhere for snow to go. Is that a common design criteria for all of the bridges in a winter climate or is that just something that was thought about due to our context?
I would say that just to, you know, modernize the design and we have a lot of these bridges there built a really long time ago in the seventies and a lot of roads just in, in town in general that have these really narrow designs that, that just don't meet our values of today in terms of non-motorized safety and comfort and just an increased population doing, having that sort of mobility or transportation choice. And so I, you know, I, I can't necessarily speak for other projects but I, I just will say an emphasis on our maintenance budgets are being cut. So allowing our maintenance folks to store snow on the bridge for a little bit longer a period of time until they can get, get around to hauling it off 'cause it will have to get hauled off. They can't push it over is is one of the things that led us to having that wider design there and in addition to increasing the site distance from the intersections on your side to be able to look around too. So yeah just sort of all of those things went into that decision. I thought it was a good impractical approach. So good. I'll just, I'll just say when we, the same thing on
We have that railing between pedestrian and facility and the shoulder, it really limits where they can store snow so we have to put it, you know we, that was really one of the driving forces is there's no place to still store snow if we don't have a shoulder in that buffer there.
I would also add too, I think in this situation where we're looking on a crosssectional for a bridge, we can widen that shoulder without acquiring right away too. So that's another benefit in this situation that we don't always have when we're going through areas we're more right away constrained.
Maybe one question is, I see specific a very, very wide bridge. Is it a it a single bridge? Is it a, are two bridges? Is it, is it gonna be built where the traffic will get diverted over to one before you build the other? I'm sure you're thinking of all those, maybe now don't have the time to go into all those details but those just some ideas spin around in my head. Did you? Yeah, whatever's appropriate at the moment. Sure. Yeah so it is a single bridge and it's 140 feet wide so it is, it's a substantially wide bridge.
We are already, we've been investigating constructability that was that row on the compatibility assessment and that had to do with because some alternatives, so if you looked at like the divergent diamond for example, it had a better constructability rating because we would've two bridges so you could build the bridges on either side of the existing bridge whereas this one you can't. But we're already working with our bridge engineer and he drawing up some concepts on how we can do halfway construction for the bridge. So keep the existing bridge in place, maybe take away a GIR or or two of the existing bridge where you build part of the new bridge and so, so those considerations are already underway. You know there is a major crossing so being able to accommodate the needs is valuable. So thank you. Other questions or comments from the city? Are there any comments from the public? Okay, go ahead. We've got two. So state your name and all three minutes.
Stephanie Mormillo, I'm with HDL engineering consultant. My only comment left question is actually related to this bridge cross section right now the bridge is approximately six lanes wide. I think it's two three lanes with two left turn lanes. And then the only concern I have is we've definitely showing improvement for the non-motorized traveling along the corridor. But this will be a very difficult location to cross because you're gonna have to cross 10 lanes of traffic because it's four lanes with that wide shoulder if you're crossing north to south. So just hoping that there's consideration for folks that wanna go from the north side of tour to the south side of tour. And I mean both sewer is also not the best,
Lovely intersection to cross as a non-motorized user. And I know you're considering McKenna's which is nice because that actually will have probably less conflicts that at some of these very, very large intersections. But just something I wanted to know, it was north south. Thank you.
I respond to that. Yeah and I guess I'm thinking offset from the left turn, this is probably very wide medium, I go ahead and get a response. Yeah, so they, because the pedestrian crossings are on the outside of the Tudor, you won't be crossing the 10 lanes at once 'cause you're not crossing Yeah two of those lanes
Yeah, so then you have a two lane wide pedestrian median in the middle opposite of the, of the other two that point. So we're working with our traffic safety engineers on, you know, if like, if there needs to and and and our traffic safety analysis to see if there needs to be a like a, a right turn pocket to get onto the ramps for example and if there would be a median in between there. And so these are all part of our traffic safety analysis underway now I'm looking at potentially two stage crossing to that safety as well. So, and, and there are only three phase signals so that wouldn't be like a normal four phase signal, either two lane road intersection, two lane roads. That would be a pretty long wave time because it's a three phase of and roof pedestrians to there pretty quickly. Thank you. Are there any comments? Go ahead.
For, oh sorry. Thank just thank you. So yeah really, really grateful to see that being taken into consideration and also wanted to comment to other members of the committee that seeing a divided, seeing a division between the traffic and the pedestrian facilities is I think going to relieve a lot of anxiety that I have heard about this particular project. So really glad to see that that's in place. Thank you.
Any other comments from the public? Okay, thanks so much for your presentation. I appreciate your time and thank you all great graphics as well from the project chief. Very much appreciate it. The, let's see, the next item on our agenda is item six C, the AMATS tribal consultation process. Yes. Hello. I was asked to put this on the, on the agenda by the policy committee chair. She wanted us to just kind of talk about what AMATS current process is for our tribal consultation. So we do have a agreement between the Municipality of Anchorage and the data of that kind of goes through what our process is and specifically outlines things that we are required to do as AMATS and then that the tribe is agreed to do as well the native village of Eklutna.
The record show. So we follow this agreement, this agreement is stated, I will say it's from 2007 so probably could use a refresher. So we basically try and engage with the tribes whenever possible. We have our specific major documents that we're required to engage with them on the MTP and the tip. Those are primary ones. We typically will reach out to the tribe and ask if they would like to have a sit down meeting to go through with the documents if they are interested. We will head out to them, we will sit down, we will listen to their concerns, incorporate 'em in and try and address where possible. We don't often get a lot of comments from them about changes they want to our documents or things they want us to do. Typically any kind of comments we get are about this, the highway itself and changes they'd like to see but we, we take their comments and we take 'em very seriously.
So it is a pretty simple process that we have. As you see there are certain things that are laid out here like we notify them of our meetings. They will have somebody attend their meetings if they want. We will provide technical assistance if they would like and then we will work together to develop our plans. So one of the things that we got in our certification review last time from FHWA was to look at redoing this agreement to see if there are any updates that are requested by the drive board. So I have that on my list. However, until we have a final approved boundary, I don't know if they will continue to be in our boundary. So I would like to hold off on doing any upgrade to this update to this agreement until we have that solidified. So I'll have it on my list maybe next year depending on how things go. So as I said earlier, we will take the final DOT tribal consultation process and take a look at that and see if there's anything we can glean from it to incorporate into the future update of this agreement so I can help answer any questions to have. Thank you. Thanks Erin. Are there any questions or comments from the committee?
That's a simple one. Are there any comments from the public? Okay, seeing none, we'll move to the next item, the, Roadmap for AMATS. This was also asked to be added to the agenda by the policy committee chair at the last policy committee. She said she'd have a draft document to provide to me. She wanted something on the agenda on a rotating basis for some of the key items like the boundaries, the operating agreement alignment in the NHS projects. I did not receive anything to provide you for this item for today, so I do not have anything but I'm willing to take any comments that you have to the policy committee. Thank you. Okay, thanks Erin. So it is a standing item that will probably be repeat and maybe more information will flow if that's the anticipation. We don't typically do standing items because it's not really cool to have an item just sit on the agenda and then have nobody show up and have to just kind of sit here. So my recommendation for it is if we have things, we put it on the agenda. If we don't, we don't put it on the agenda unless you guys want to hear, you know, monthly where we're at with the roadmap or annex. So maybe it'll be something we can bring up with the policy committee and see what they want us to do. That's, you know, as long as you get it a week before our meeting, you can easily add it to the agenda with too.
Thanks. Are there other questions or comments from the committee? Okay, are there any comments from the public on this item? Thanks. Seeing none, we'll move on to item 60, the next task meeting overview. Okay, so we have a couple of items that'll come before you. One of the foremost items is the 2052 MTP project list and financial assumptions approval. So just as a reminder, May 18th in the afternoon, what time does it start?
It is important for you to attend if you are able to. We tried our best to accommodate everybody but not everybody's schedule lined up unfortunately. So I believe we'll be in this room having this. And this is where we go over our revenue, our fed, our our revenue assumptions for the MTP. We talk about where we're at with the project list and how much room is available for any new projects. Just as a reminder, we're not doing a call for nomination, we're just utilizing the existing list and then any new projects the committees would like to add to that list. If there are new projects that you would like, it would be important for us to know soon so we can get the scored and ranked and brought to the June meeting.
So the June meeting will be pretty essential. Please attend if you can make it now we'll have the rec trails plan on there. I, we'll have to verify if we are ready for that for final approval. But I have that on there as a possible option. Then we'll have a presentation about the IL Street rehabilitation project. I believe we need to have some discussions on what to move forward with on that project. 'cause we have a draft Minnesota IL corridor plan and the policy committee said that the IL Street rehabilitation project needs to match the corridor plan but it's in a draft form right now. So we're trying to keep things rolling forward. So we want to get it, the committee's buy-in on what that project should be looking at and then we'll have an informational item on the household travel survey. No. Okay, well I know Taylor's very upset but we won't have a call. Not the irritates her more than else.
So I'm being told we'll probably have that in July. I did wanna note something really quickly. It is not on the June agenda because we're needing some more time, but the last policy committee meeting there was kind of general consensus for the policy committee members that our subcommittee should have a little bit more autonomy to send out letters for comments without having to go through the technical advisory committee and policy committee for approval. So staff is currently working on getting feedback from the subcommittee on that, providing up some kind of recommendation and will be bringing it forward to the committees. I think in August is when we said because we wanna be able to go through the subcommittees and review that. So basically have kind of like a decision tree matrix that says when a committee can send out things directly without having to get approval and when they have to go to the TAC and PC for approval.
So you'll be seeing that in the future. We'll probably send out something in draft for you guys to review ahead of that meeting to get your comments ready. And lastly, we have the NATO conference coming up so a number of staff members will be gone. So if you need anything just let us know. There may be a slight delay if you're asking for an item to be on the next agenda. So thank you. Okay, thanks Erin. And just to clarify, make it clear our packet June is second. Thank you Thursday. As a good reminder because of where we're at with the MTP, we needed to move our TAC meeting from the fourth to the 11th of June. So it'll be the second Thursday of the month instead of the first. Same time, same place. So thank you for the reminder and the for the work session with the MTP will that the materials be sent beforehand with the project list and will that be a time that we can look at those and consider if there's anything that we would like to have added?
And that can be something that can be discussed after the work session of decisions we've made. Of course that discussed the preparation for decisions would be to be made in June. So how that process works. Yeah, so right now what we're doing is working on the fiscal assumptions are ready to go. And again it's just putting together the list of what that is. So you have all the notes of where that information came from. We're finalizing the project list right now. We are working card on it today but ran out of time. So there'll be a little bit more work. And the idea is to get you that project list of the different, you know, complete streets non-motorized next week sometime maybe Monday or Tuesday, may not a full week, sorry. And get you guys to start taking a look at, okay, what's currently in there and then how much space do we have, you know, how much 2026 funding do we have available to add projects in it?
So, and that'll give you an opportunity to kind of mull it over, come to the work seven work session, have that discussion to be like, okay, we think these projects should be moved up and that staff is gonna come with some recommendations for the AMAs funding. I recommend, you know, DOT and the muni may come with some recommendations for projects they'd like to see added in if they're interested. And so we can have that discussion and then whatever comes outta that work session, we'll bring it back to the meetings in June for action by the committees. And then the idea is to take that whatever comes outta June and put it into the draft document and get the draft document to you a couple of months later. Think in August or a September public comment period, we're moving quick on this one. So just keep that in mind by limiting the feedback by limiting kind of the work tasks.
It's allowing for a faster turnaround. Yeah, the the big thing is the next time will be a more, yeah, so next, not this current update but the next major one which will be started as soon as we finish this current one will be kind of the more robust start over basically of the MTP. So there's gonna be a lot more new refresh, not just a refresh but a brand new document and probably do a new call for nominations. We still gotta figure that out so I can't guarantee anybody anything, but it's one of the things we want to talk about as we go forward. Okay. Okay, thank you Erin, are there other questions or comments from the police? Quick question, would a road
Like a pavement, like just redoing pavement? Yes. No, that typically would fall into our M&O side of things. So we wouldn't call it out as an individual project, but if it's like a rehab project or a reconstruction project, those would be called out for clarification. Okay. Other number question or comments on this? Seven. Are there any comments from the public on this item? Okay, moving on then to the next part of our agenda, the committee comments. Are there any members of the committee who have the comments to share with group? Go ahead Mr. Lindamood. Normally we start with gravel trains and ease anchor into the concept of passenger trains this year we're ripping the bandaid up. We get 'em all next year. Okay, so enjoy. Thanks for the heads up. I always love your, the way that you phrase Okay. Comments from the committee. M&O
One thing I'll say with the vision zero coordinator position, it is still open. If there's anybody would like to come and support our efforts Vision zero to please apply. The position is reposted another unsuccessful round this time is open, so please apply. We'd love to have you come up with us. And when this is a heads up, there is a groundbreaking ceremony for the downtown Trail Connection project. So this is the one that's connecting Ship Creek, the coastal trail. It is at the small boat launch Harbor Road parking area, Saturday, May 9th, one 30 to 2:00 PM for anybody who is interested in attending. I will sadly be out of town or I would be there celebrating Joyousness for this project. So encourage everybody to go. Thank you.
Can I add to that? I just wanna be clear, it is a groundbreaking, not a ribbon cutting. There is confusion. Also, the Anchorage Park Foundation is the one who is celebrating the groundbreaking. So we have questions. The nonprofit organization that is our nonprofit partner is doing that and we are really appreciative of it. But again, it is a ground and breaking, not a ribbon cutting.
So nobody's gonna be able to jump on the trail. It'll be out there with scissors. I'm gonna say you get shuttles my system. Yeah, I, because the passenger trains is their ideally. Awesome. Okay. The, so one other I guess I mentioned is that the NAER conferences next week and we can have a contingency of 11 people from Anchorage going and it'll be a great time. So excited to see what new ideas and a collaboration we back from that the, so any other comments from committee? Next item on our agenda are public comments. Are there any members of the public who would like to comments? This is I just general comments. Go ahead today.
Thank you. I'm involved today for the record, I just wanna express my appreciation to this group for all of the work that you do that you put into making our lives much easier, the policy committee. So thanks, this is time out of your day and other loads of other work you could be doing. So thanks for the time that you take to do this. Much appreciate.
This is hidden text that lets us know when google translate runs.