May 21, 2026 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM
Minor things that have come up through the discussion. There's a section of intermediate changes, which are bigger ticket items, more time and would not fit within our existing budget. And then there's a set of large or robust changes which are even bigger, you know, a little more time commitment and funding commitments. Some of these are an either or, so there's some options there and we can talk through those in a little bit if, if there's any confusion there. The technical advisory committee selected kind of the, the biggest changes option. So in the memo there, under TAC action taken, it lists the items that they recommended that we pursue for changing the plan. So that's good for your reference. Also for context, even though this is the next item on the agenda, we do have a tip act to present an opportunity to add some funding to this project.
So this is not just kind of hypothetical pie in the sky with, with when it's showing extra cost, that is an option. And what the TAC recommended there was with their kind of full suite of big changes or the most complete changes. We had estimated about 40,000 would be a good budget for that with, you know, including some wiggle rooms. And then there was some discussion at the TAC about making sure that there's capacity to implement changes, make changes after the public comment period, which we still need to open. So they wanted to add a little bit of extra funding to it for that purpose. So their final number was 50,000. That decision will be on the next item, just providing that as context as we're thinking about these changes. But that is a possibility. So to start off, we have the consultant team. So actually before we get to Alex, the action requested today, I apparently forgot to update this from the TAC. So instead of what it says on the memo, the action we're requesting from the policy committee is to provide staff with direction on which of these options you would like us to pursue, if any, for changing the climate action plan before we send it out for public review.
So I think what would happen then is you tell us what to change, we'll go back with the consultant team and change it and bring it back to the TAC and the pc, I think July is what we were thinking for that so that you can see the updated draft and then at that time release it to public on this. So we have Alex l from our consultant team online to walk you through a little bit of this. Alex, I hope I didn't feel too much of your thunder. And then we can circle back to any kind of specific questions or anything else on these options. Go ahead, Alex.
Thanks Emily. Yeah, as Emily said, I'm Alex Bell, I'm a planner with RSG. We're the prime consultant supporting the transportation Climate Action Plan joined by r and m and Hanu and Michael Baker International as well. Emily gave you a nice rundown. I'm gonna present sort of a, a brief encapsulation of the options that are in front of you in the memo through a short slide deck, and then we can talk about them further and answer any clarifying questions as needed. As noted, this is a follow up menu of actions based on the work session that was held with the policy committee members and the technical advisory committee. In April. There is work remaining to be done to finalize the transportation climate action plan that includes engaging stakeholders for review of the draft plan. Once that's approved for release, of course there's action to be taken before them.
We have a 60 day or a 45 day, two 60 day public comment period I think envisioned. And then we are obviously coming back to you now for explicit direction on the work remaining to be done. And then we want to adjust the feedback that we received during the work session. So these items of the public comment period and and stakeholder engagement were things that were sort of already in the scope already part of the effort that was planned. The direction that we anticipate receiving today will give clarification on the, whether any additional work is to be done and or exactly how to address the, the commentary received thus far on the TBL. So to give everybody kind of a quick snapshot of the remaining resources available to the project team, RSG has just a handful of hours remaining r and m has a a healthier budget remaining, and Hanu is down to none.
There are some modest hours also available for Michael Baker that's not included on here. They're, they're mostly in the realm of supporting the engagement effort. The level of effort expected is indicated here and sort of gives a sense of, well, okay, how much is sort of committed to each firm and what does that leave, you know, in the, in the tank to support any further work to be done. Obviously with the emptying out of upon news hours, there's, there's really no capacity there remains to support any work. And then in fact, a little bit of the deficit that the rest of the team would've to compensate for. And there's really just kind of fumes available for RSG to, to support some handful of items. RNN has a little bit more in the tank.
We recognize that that's a limitation. And so in order to give you guys a kind of a sense of, you know, well, what can we do and, and what might require additional funding, we've organized a, a quick sort of organization of the types of work to be done and how they would be packaged into different sort of tiers of expected costs. So the types of work really include some revisions to the report and that includes, you know, some really rudimentary edits to the, the verbiage as well as some more thorough kind of revisions to the tone or some specific references that need to be included. We have the question as to whether we need to drop or heavily modify the discussion of user fees and how exactly those might be presented in a way that's more palatable and and meaningful to the success of the plan, as well as being clear about their importance to the achievement of the GHD reduction goals.
And we'll talk about that as we also get into the technical and modeling piece. That technical component really is all the stuff that we talked about with you all with respect to the modeling itself, right? You know, all the stuff that was done in vision about how many scenarios we we might need to rerun and what level of, of, of rigor and detail we want to go through in terms of addressing some of those technical questions. And then finally, you all prompted some consideration of cost estimation as something that would be really helpful for interpreting and, and better making the, the, the tcap more kind of practical for not just kind of a plan to plan, but a plan that has some, some real implications for how investment would be guided and what it would mean to implement some of these strategies. So we've got two different tiers of providing cost estimates that would address implementation costs and potentially complement any discussion of revenue and user fees to the extent that those are retained.
Now those are kind of the types of things that need to be done to address the, the comments received during the work session. Things that we all talked about. Again, we put these into sort of tiers or packages that have different costs associated with 'em. So the, the basic is that sort of low hanging fruit, the, the really perfunctory kinds of edits. These are the things that are expected to be completed no matter what. And that includes all of the engagement that we've already talked about. The intermediate tier, as Emily mentioned earlier, is a more sort of in between but, you know, modest to moderate level of effort. We may only get to some of the, the really meaningful concerns probably can't do all of these with the remaining budget available. And you'll see that there's sort of a, a modest budget request associated to supplement the, the existing budget to get to those intermediate items or the thorough package would be one that that really kind of gets really robust deals with more of the technical and modeling components a little bit more rigorous in terms of the cost estimation that might be entailed there.
Really very few, maybe none could be properly delivered with the remaining budget. And so these would be a more, like, if we do this, we would, we would have to make the amendment requested based on collaboration across the consulting team and looking for, you know, how we could package these things to efficiently deal with everything. We are presenting an hours and cost based estimate for each tier. Now, as Emily noted, there's still uncertainty and the TAC was might say generous depending on how you look at it, but, but you know, thought that there's probably a need for some contingency as well as, you know, recognizing that there's uncertainty exactly the extent of what the public comment period might raise in terms of how we would need to modify the plan. So for the basic tier, as was noted, that's accommodated within the existing budget. For the intermediate we would be looking at maybe 10 to 12 K. And for the thorough, we're we're talking about 30 ish, 35, the recommendation from the TAC was to, to make that a full 50 to provide sufficient contingency and plenty of capacity to address any outstanding needs that might emerge as the plan goes to public comment. So I'm happy to answer detailed questions and, and dive into numbers and particular line items if that's helpful. But for now, I'll give it back to Emily or whoever runs from here.
Thanks Alex. Yeah, if anybody has questions or if you want to walk through item by item, we can certainly do that. I would say as a general overview, most of these items are sort of making the plan better, but there is the topic of the user fees or the VMT fees, which that would be a fairly fundamental change to the plan. So just making sure everybody's aware, we can certainly do that change, but it's not just a, oh do everything, it'll be better doing everything will make that change. So I don't know if you all wanna walk through stuff or if you have questions queued up or any questions.
I have a, a logistical question and is it possible for us to get a, the draft of the climate action plan emailed to us quickly? I, I am struggling to pull it up in my email and there were a couple of technical ones I wanted to make. Do you all have, do you have that in a shareable version?
Okay, if that's where it was then I can probably find it on my own. It's gonna be on the, the agenda. Okay then let me, let me go dig. Let me do further digging before I have you do that one question, can you comment on like the stakeholder engagement that through the plan we could have with the agencies that are involved with commitment? Not sure if it's lined out here specifically, but because the, the states and the municipality, I think that they, to commit to, or at least the open.
Yeah, so over the course of the process of developing this plan, we've had two formal stakeholder meetings as groups and then we've also had one-on-one sort of interviews with the stakeholders and I, I'm sure there's a list of those stakeholders in a direct plan, which of course handy, but that includes the agencies that would be making, that would be responsible for some of the actions that we've identified. And then we have a third stakeholder group meeting that we had scheduled. And then when the policy committee decided to delay releasing this plan, we, we told everybody, okay, hang on a minute. We don't want you guys to spend all this time reviewing and talking about this draft if it's going to fundamentally change. So we postpone that and then we'll, we are planning to circle back and reschedule that to be able to counsel them about the final, for the public reading draft.
We had the work session after a policy committee member identified some concerns. I guess my question is, so a, a public process has kind of already started on the existing draft, like the stakeholder meetings and I, I guess what, what is, what are these changes responsive to? Like whose concerns is it in in response to those stakeholder meetings? Or is it in response to feedback from policy committee members? I'm just kind of wrap my head around like the increased expense of this and the sequencing of it too in terms of started this process, but now we're kind of adding all this other stuff. So do you have a take on that?
Yeah, so the stakeholder meetings that we've had were last January, 2025 and last June I'm pretty sure. So that was more in developing that initial draft, which then came to you guys in February and then at the February policy committee meeting as well as the TAC meeting. And then at the work session that we had last month, there were a number of sort of comments and questions and some clarifications, you know, for direction as well as the larger concerns that were raised by certain numbers. So this memo lists all of those that we compiled from the committee just to not say, you know, you haven't given us direction yet, automation, these changes, that's what today is for. But just to lay them all out to say, here's what we've heard and here's kind of the path forward with those concerns.
Thank you. So sorry, I was trying to decide whether this was the appropriate moment to make my comments or I should wait until we actually had a motion on the table, but I think, I think now maybe it's okay. So I firstly I, I'd like to say I really appreciated the work session and the engagement there and what I heard is a very clear preference not only on the part of the technical advisory committee, but you know, the end of the work session that that eliminating references to user fees was not the preference. And, and I I I just would like to reiterate my, my preference that I think it's really important that we are going to talk about climate action in terms of transportation. We must talk about the variety of options for funding or not funding that work. And, and to that end, I think it's really important that no matter how this moves forward, that we include a really robust explanation of how user fees work, how they're calculated, and how they would be, how they could be implemented even if it is not being brought forward as a recommended strategy.
I really believe that that entire discussion needs to be included, whether that's as an appendix or something, but basically something that demonstrates, that shows our work and it shows the, the research that's been done and the modeling that's been done to help the public understand that some of the recommendations that we are making here cost money. And one of the ways that we pay for these recommendations is by implementing user fees in some form or fashion. I think to eliminate that from the document or scrub that from the document would be a huge miss that would actually be quite misleading to the public. We'd essentially be identifying a problem and then offering absolutely zero solution as to how we might address it. So I, I just wanted that to be on the table as we're having this conversation. I think I heard a similar preference from members of the TAC and other folks who are in part of the work session that, you know, although some members of the policy committee might have an issue with fully recommending or putting the full sort of weight of the policy committee behind those recommendations, it feels very important that that conversation be included and included in a robust fashion.
I, so yeah, I think looking through the list of options, there are a few where it appears maybe we've done modeling and then that modeling would either be changed or expanded or replaced. So for instance, on the intermediate change number nine bus fuels rerun model and update text, is that something that would expand upon the modeling that's already been done? Or is the desire there to get rid of the old modeling, not provide that information and just provide us,
So for that particular item that was, I would say a correction from people holder where Bart mentioned that in the draft plan we had said all the buses are gonna move to electric and Bart said, hold on, we're not quite ready to commit to that. We don't, we don't think that's an accurate commitment to make. So he suggested looking at alternative tools and maybe not the bulk. And then, so that would be an up, that would be a change to the model and we would not then be presenting the previous results from the model. So that just that component changes, you have to rerun the model, get the new results. That would be relatively minor in the grand scheme of things, but it would be even accurate.
And then item number 18, having to do with the user fees, we run the model. I, I guess my question is if we, if we have modeling that's been done sort of, you know, at the public expense, why would we rerun the modeling here or what, I guess what is the, what's the goal here?
So this one was based on the comments from the committee or committee members about if we're not recommending implementing user fees like VMT fee, then that has implications for the revenue that the current version of the plan assumes there would be some revenue coming in that could then support some of the other strategies that work that cost money beyond what is currently funded. So then the question is, well if we're not recommending user fees, where does that money come from? Maybe it doesn't. And so if we kept all of that in the model, it would again be a little bit misleading because we don't have a way to fund that and therefore when the model shows we can reach our goal, but that may or may not be realistic or accurate. So 18 is kind of getting at the idea of removing that idea of recommending user fees.
If we remove that recommendation then we're reducing the revenue that would be available for other strategies. Therefore we probably need to take some of those strategies out as recommendations and as pieces of the model to say okay, like for example, one of the recommendations is implementing the non-motorized plan, the phenomenal drive plan, which goes well beyond what we have identified as funding in the TC. So if we remove those user fees, remove things like implement the non plan in full, that would then have consequences for the expected reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. And then that would be the new results and probably a new estimate for how much we would be reducing the greenhouse gas emissions lower than that 30% that we're currently targeting. Does that answer your question?
Yeah, I, so I think what I'm wondering is if there's a way that maybe we can take this up, we get more into our motion and debate portion, but if we could have both scenarios kind of a compare and contrast know here's what the modeling would look like if we did have these user fees and here's what it would look like if we didn't. And then put that out to the public and then get their take on that as it comes back to us. I think my interesting, this to me seems to kind of sort of jump to a conclusion before it gets out there. So that's, I think that's all of these other concerns about, okay, thank you.
I just just wanted to confirm that this item 18 is, is specifically focused on removing them from the, from the model scenarios and not strictly from the plan there. There's other items where those options kind of retain or remove from the plan are indicated I think in the intermediate section. And so exactly as requested you would have from this the ability to take the with fees model results that we already have and compare them against the, without across a number of different scenarios and other combinations and some of the stuff that Emily was mentioning in, in terms of the extent of implementation of the non-motorized plan and things like that for example. So I just wanted to basically confirm that this would allow and and directly support the comparison that you've requested. Thanks or suggested. Thank you.
Reports for discussion for the motion here we have one, but one of the, I think goals of, of this from our perspective, the DOT was to have just greater detail on the models. Like what, what do each of the strategies cost and then what are the carbon reduction or the emissions reductions per strategy And that that would help a lot with understanding what we could do and with regard and with a revenue that comes in and, and on the VMT fees part of our hope was that like the process or legislative action that has to happen. So mapping out what that is, which wasn't in the original document, but just there's a lot of external things that need to happen and some of which is not in the control of the agency's or the municipality's. So just getting that detail in here again just to help us understand what what we will have to be able to resources and, and another item to considering this is that would surface transportation reauthorization now of our production funding is not expected to continue on or coming years. We, we should expect that that funding will repeated. So I think in this plan you might want any, that in part of the scenario analysis is that that funding won't be there and available for capital that's not set in stone of course, but by all the drafts and discussions that we've heard at the TAC committee that that was.
Okay. So just to circle back to our items, I think for the discussion about how the the VMT fees would be administered and then how you might need to change the code. So that's item 13 A refers to that. I'll give you intermediate changes, yes. The cost per strategy. We have the two options there. One is the last one under intermediate number 14 where it's just an order of magnitude estimate and then the more robust option is number 15 where it would be a dollar amount, you know, still in estimate of course, but a little bit more specific. And then yeah, I should say you are more than welcome to direct us to make other changes beyond this. So I think that would the, the concern about CRP funding could fall under an additional option.
I mean, yeah, I think I may have a motion which take a step gonna be maybe a long and complex one but I first part of my motion will be to essentially move the technical advisory committee's recommendation to implement the full set of changes. But the second part of my motion is that I would want to amend the language in item 18. Which item, sorry, 18, 18. And essentially I think I'd like it to read, provide modeling that removes user fees and adjusts or other strategies based on the reduced perspective revenue and maybe capturing at the end of that also provide modeling already performed, retaining user needs. So just capturing essentially that I'd like to put both of those scenarios forward for public consideration. Okay. Did you capture that Mr? Yes.
Basically one, two options. One without the user fees and what that would look like. And then one with what we already have, which is the user fees included. So just clarify, you want us to bring that forward to you as part of the draft document when we bring it back out for public release? to show both? Olay, Thank You
Gone to the amended before that can, can we request that we get the workbooks and it's probably Excel or something, but to be able to see the workbooks prior to a draft written up that we would agree to It might help as an iterative step to make sure all the scenarios before are included. So the motion carbon reduction scenario analysis and an early deliverable of the work.
May ask a clarifying question. Are, are you envisioning that that would be circulated to the policy committee by email in a in advance of the plan coming back to us? Yes. Or to presented in a, in the meeting made available in material packets? Depending on the, but yeah, where we can discuss the scenarios and ensure it's inclusive before time is invested in a publish draft. What I was thinking Erin, what Or msm So sorry, what would that do? How would that impact, I mean how would that impact the workflow for this? Or perhaps that's a good question for Alex.
Quick clarifying things. Do you want to see the scenarios before we run them with these changes or after we run them? Are you basically looking to see what all went into each scenario? Like these are the strategies that went into this scenario and this is the output, these are the strategies that, that scenario and this is the output. You wanna see all the background information about what went into those scenarios. So you can go through and just verify, okay, these are the correct things that were added or not and you'd like to see it after we run it so you can see. Okay, I just wanna make sure that we're not sending you something you'd be like, we wanted to see it before you, then you work on it. So you would want it after we do the work. Well then Emily would have, Emily and Alex would have to answer on the impact.
Yeah, so I would suggest, so we are doing a con, we've done a contract extension, we have enough time red tape wise, I would suggest that we bring that information back to you guys at, I think it would probably be the July meeting at this point so that there can be a, a publicly noticed discussion about it. 'cause if we just send it to you by email, it's kinda like, well you can't really do anything with that. Yeah. Whereas I'm assuming you would like the chance to look at it and say, yes, we think these three scenarios should proceed or, you know, we don't like this one, focus on these two or just focus on this one. So that could be, procedurally a way to do that would be to bring it back to you all at the July meeting as kind of a method and results. Here's the scenario outputs and then after that discussion and any further direction from you all, then we would actually put it into the draft, bring that draft back to you August or September for public relief. For the public comment period. Yeah. Is that exactly Okay. Okay. Wanted to be sure we were clear on mechanics. Yes. Okay.
I think I'm, I'm just wanting to check in. Do we have any particular external timeline for this project or are we sort of brief form this point? We're pretty free form. We are, we have done the contract extension, we've got a for extension, there's no current federal requirement for this, so we don't have federal deadlines to worry about. This will be on the next item, but I might suggest keeping in mind this is some extra modeling and so from a budget standpoint, if, if you all feel this is worth, you know, providing some funding to maybe bump up that $50,000 mark to say thousand. But that can be a discussion at the next section. But yeah, schedule wise, I think we'll be okay if we have enough room builtin with the, that that we have it progress now. Okay. Wanted be sure we weren't tripping over our own feet. Okay, great. I have no further questions. Any,
Haven't done this for a while, so thank you. I guess my comment on is, is related to the, the, the user fees, the VMT fees and other things, I think some concern that given the, the overall state of the economy and the challenges that residents are facing already with respect to costs across the board, that that explicitly introducing the option for user fees, which are another form of tax is of concern right now. So I am, I guess perhaps a question is, is, you know, I'm, I am behind the curve with respect to the other members who have heard this before, but as it's written right now, it appears that it would, it would explicitly cost out some of those user fees and, and there is a concern about that. So I, and, and I right now probably would not support the motion as amended, but I'm offering it for discussion. Appreciate.
Yeah, so by my MR Chair. So I think what I would like to see, because this is gonna go through the public process and I'd like to have the public weigh in on that and what they think about a t you know, in, in, in the same manner that we've had to publicly in on other revenue measures like a sales tax for instance. And so I, I don't think we're at the point yet where we maybe ought to make a concrete recommendation in the plan, but I think it could be good at least in the draft to say, Hey, we've look at both of these things, what do you think? And kind of gauge the response. I also think, as Mr stated it, I, I could see a final version of this plan that maybe doesn't make a concrete recommendation for VMT but has in an appendix, here's the modeling that it did, here's what it would look like if we did have this be in place.
I could also see a plan that maybe takes a little bit of a more nuanced approach and provides some type of flow chart. You know, if this, then this, you know, if, if we were to move forward with this then you know, we have these revenues and we, we would be able to do X, Y, z. If policy makers don't decide to do that, then you know, here's how we will have to shift. And so I don't see any of this language as putting forward at this point maybe a recommendation for that. I mean I think in the draft though, there is discussion about thet fees. I I, my perspective is to out to unpack that a little bit and provide the public information, get the input and then in a final draft decide how we wanna approach that. Thank Mr. Ton proceed. Aaron do you have that written?
Can restate our motion. Oh, for the motion. Oh my goodness. to implement the full set of changes and amending item 18 to say that providing modeling that removes user fees and other strategies based on revenue. We should also provide modeling already performed for the user fees. And the idea is to bring both forward for public consideration. Then we have a couple of amendments, one in which we include modeling scenario where the CRP funding is eliminated in what that would do. And then another one is early deliverable of the background workbook information for the scenarios to be delivered to the policy committee members and have it ready for the July meeting, we'll say July. But if there's delay we will let you guys know to have you guys review the scenarios, discuss it at the July meeting, make sure we're all on the same page. And then if we're all good to go we include, include that in the full document, bring the full document in August or September depending on how it is for public release. I think I captured it all. Let me know if I did.
And so I think I have a couple questions then that you, and maybe these are more questions for you Mr. Ado, for you Mr. Bowling. So your motion to include the full suite of TAC recommendations, that's their recommendations as written item five through 1213 A and 15 through 18 plus the additions you added. Is that correct? Yeah, so in, yeah in their recommendation it looks like that the most thorough change when multiple options exist. So some of these are overlapping. So this would be the choose the ones that would be sort of the most extensive in scope and then, yeah, the only one that I'm suggesting edit the my amendment is number eight. That's just to provide model A with and without it for peoples. And 13 B is still out because that was not included in Oh I see. Yeah, I think, wait
I I'm just asking because his Mr. Oland's motion is to include the full, the whole suite. I wanna make sure it's the recommendations that the TA correct? Yes. Yeah, for clarification, I don't think I have any other questions at this point. Thank you. So I think I'll put this back if I may. Is there any other, are there any other committee comments or questions on the motion?
Yes. Hello everybody. We have an admin mod number six, hopefully the last one of this. There are a couple of changes as we outlined in the memo here. First HSIP project Gambell and Ingra street's overhead signal indication upgrade project. They need 351,000 more for this project. So we're including that increase then the Glen highway and Highland interchange preservation and operational improvements. They needed $200,000 increase there for some additional design work. Both of these were requested by DOT&PF at the technical advisory committee. They recommended approval of admin mod six with these two changes and had one additional change and that was for the additional $50,000 for the climate action plan can be included in FY 26. We do have enough funding available on FY 26 to incorporate that. Now there's some additional changes I bring for you to you today and it is on your little sheet in front of you and it's on the screen.
So it's this sheet here for five B. Additional items after the technical advisory committee meeting, there were some changes requested by DOT for HSIP projects. There are nine projects on here. I wasn't gonna go through every single one of them 'cause they're almost all funding code changes. Pretty basic work that we do behind the scenes but it's, it's all public. So you see in front of you a lot of it is changing the codes from UNC categorical 148 to VRU, vulnerable road user funding. So those are pretty easy and staff recommend support of those. There are two that are not funding code changes that I want to call out for you. Number four, it's a name change in addition to the fund code change for the a street road diet changing into a street safety improvements. This was changed as part of the funding plan and we missed it in one of our previous admin mods.
So the request is to go ahead and change it. This go around my understanding nothing else is changing. So the description of the scope is not changing, just the name change. And then the other one is number eight, which is the Ocean Dock Road two track signal system upgrade. Apparently I was special that day and forgot to include the match line in there. So we have to add in the match money 'cause all federal funding has matched that we utilize in this area. So the request is to add in the match amount and update the total project cost. I do apologize to the project team for that. That was an inadvertent error on my part. So these items are before you and so staff's recommendation is to incorporate all nine or all these changes one through nine in addition to the other changes in the memo that we have already mentioned. That is all I had. Thank you.
Thank you Mr. Jongenelen. Any questions or comments from the committee on this side? Sure. Mr. Volland. Thank you. I just wanna flag that I would like to get at some point a briefing on the what may become the a street safety improvement project and see kind of what's going on there. What is the plan for the, the reallocated lane? It's, yeah, some insight into the, the plan and design for that project.
A question with respect to the recommended actions from the TAC. It was just suggested that based on the additional modeling and the the back and forth, we'd like to have that $50,000 might not be sufficient to cover what's needed to complete the climate action plan. Do we have capacity to add additional funds and FY 26 to that?
And before you get ideas, remember it still takes time. It takes time to get the funds obligated and in place. So it's not like we have a big flush fund available to do a whole bunch of stuff the last minute. So just kind of keep that in place. Breaking my heart message. I'm sorry, I just, I just wanna be honest. So not to give DC Keith a heart attack here, but just help me up, you know, be careful.
Or so you don't need match but the total incorrect because it's missing 10%, which would've been the, so the total cost just needs to be updated. Not adding that match line should match, should match the HSIP. Okay, so it's not adding a match line, it's just increasing the project cost by $6,850 because that was the 6,860 or 60?
Yeah, so it is adding 6,850 to the project cost. So basically what I did is I thought there was a match, I didn't show the line in the match and so I reduced the total project cost from that match amount when it didn't have a match. And man that was real special that they, I apologize. So it's not adding a match line, it's just updating the total project cost
Yeah, let's go ahead and do an amendment of that one. Well, technically speaking what we're gonna have to do, you could do a motion that basically incorporates staffs items here and you could adjust it then. Or you could do a separate amendment. Would doing a separate amendment be better or just adjust it when they do during the motion. Okay, sorry, just asking
Amendment to, do we need a second first? Okay, I'll second that and then I, I would like to make an offer friendly amendment to that. If I may move to approve item five B as recommended by the by staff. And you want it separate from Lori but we'll keep it together and amend line item eight to delete the words add in match line of $6,850 and add and change the last set re update total project cost to $68,500. Is that correct?
Yeah, we can do that. To say to, to change this. So this, this doesn't really go anywhere after this. This is just for this meeting. So what we're gonna do if you guys approve it, is we're just gonna update the cost to the 68,500. What we can do is just have it on the record you're saying increasing the cost by 6,850 for a total of 68,500. Sorry. No, that's alright. Very confusing. We're good.
Yes it is. Two except staff comments, accept the TAC recommendations, and then to amend line eight on the additional information and we'll provide this on the agenda so people can see it later. To reflect that it is remove the match line and state that the total project cost will be increased by 6,850 to a total amount of 68,500.
Any other questions? Any objections to the amendments? None. The amendment passes now we're back on the main motion as amended, I believe. Any additional comments from committee members on the main motion as amended? Does anybody need that read back for all? Got no objections. The main motion as amended, excuse me, is passed
Thank you again. Hello everyone. Emily Weiser senior planner with, so we are in HSIP nomination season. The way that this works is DOT Central region provides some nominations to the statewide office and then they select what they would like to fund for the HSIP program. Next year, central region has asked AMATS for rec or for requests on what we would like them to consider nominating. We had a work session on this last month and at that time we as staff had gone through the safety plan and looked at some of the hotspots identified by the safety plan to see kind of what are our top priorities or locations that need safety improvements. I, I think we had a list of eight at that point. There's kind of general support for pursuing those options at the work session. So then we went back and looked at specifically the data from 2020 to 2024 because that's what the HSIP nomination process will look at.
It's that time period of data. Some of the locations that we had talked about don't actually qualify or would, would be extremely unlikely to be selected based on a reduced crash history during that time. So fingers crossed, hopefully those locations are doing better now. So based on that, we've narrowed it down to three projects that we as staff suggest to nominate and the TAC did recommend approving those three projects. So those three are at the bottom of your first page of your memo C Street and 15th and Gamble. The other materials provided here are some context for that. So the back page of the memo shows projects or locations that we've talked about in the past that we're not, staff are not recommending that we pursue at this time. And there's some reasoning there. Some of them are bigger projects, whereas DOT is really interested in more discreet quick wins for projects for this year. And then some of those, like I said, don't have the crash history in the most recent five years to be supported. There is also an attachment to this item, which is a table with some gray and white rose. These are the current HSIP projects that we have programmed in. Just the request from the TAC was to provide that for some background information. So these are already approved and funded and underway.
And then I did also provide you all a copy of the AMATS High Crash network map just for context again to look at kind of where those post hot spots are. So the action before you today is to consider what projects we might or what you all would recommend that the central region considering pursue as nominations for the HSIP program for next year.
Would just like to thank staff for the summary table. The assessment is so useful, so kudos to whoever pulled that together so that we had all of this information really tidy in one place as far as what is actually happening with HSIP right now. So, so wonderful. So thank you.
Your question from committee members? I, I guess I would make just a brief comment that I, I've observed as, as Mr. Jongenelen has commented this to me earlier this morning, that there's been some very, very strong collaboration between municipality, Anchorage staff and in the various departments and DOT staff and, and I'll mention Anna by name, but there's many others who are working in this as well. So a lot of good collaboration. I think a lot of, a lot of really good things happening in that arena and thanks to the Amen staff for supporting this as well. Any comments from the public? My comments,
Just a quick word, just clarification. We aren't actually nominating these projects, these are just requests to go to DOT to be looked at for nominations. We don't actually nominate projects for HSIP program. That was what we discussed at the work session. So I just wanna make it clear that we're, we're moving, we're trying to move away from that. Okay. And just use
Okay, perfect. If I could, I just will speak to this. Thanks. I am really excited to see the team and gamble included here in my district and you know, there's a lot, a lot of conversations we've had around safety this corridor. The other thing I would highlight here is there's also, so that building on that corner that has been hit multiple times and has suffered substantial property damage. So the, I think it would be interesting in addition to a list of potential treatments here to consider maybe some followers that would help protect both private property and, and pedestrians. Yeah, really glad this is included. Thanks.
So yeah, I think my, my comment is with, with respect to the, the project on, well Zoom and I, I think there's some interesting synergy to note here that there's an upcoming public hearing on the speed limits on Tudor and Muldoon, which have historically prevented there from being pedestrian crossing treatments and those kinds of improvements made because the speed is such on vulnerable and tutor that those kinds of interventions are not supportive. So I am hopeful that what we will hear at the Tudor and multi speed limit here in public hearing will support this intervention and will allow for a reduction in speed on Muldoon so that we can think about some crossing treatments, marked crosswalks and curb ramps and pedestrian signalization of some kind that would not have been possible at the current speed. So I'm, I'm cautiously optimistic about our, our number one request. Thank you.
Thank you for the comment. Any other comments or questions? Any objections to approving the motion? Hearing none that motion passes we now have before item five D, the Department of Transportation, public facilities tribal consult consultation, policy update hearing second.
Thank you. So as you may recall, back in April we had a quick presentation from DOT on this item. They're currently updating their 2002 tribal consultation policy and they've asked item to review it or asked Ammas to review it and provide any comments. The staff reviewed this and actually have no comments, but we do like to thank very much DOT for giving us the opportunity to review the policy. And our plan is that whatever final product is developed by DOT, we would recommend that we utilize it to help inform any future updates to Amma's tribal consultation process. I think because DOT is doing so much work, reaching out to the tribes that we could learn a lot from their efforts. So we brought this before the technical advisory committee, the TAC has no comments and they recommend that the policy committee review the travel consultation policy and provide any comments to DOT&PF? Thank you.
Yes. I'll do a brief, brief thing that I can do here. So we were alerted to the fact that the municipality Anchorage is submitting a safe streets for all applications for safety improvements on East Northern Lights Boulevard. So this is in the Ammas safety plan as a high priority tier two corridor. And so they're looking at doing some pedestrian signal operation improvements, some protected mid-block crossings and some other not missing non-motorized connections with some of the trails in the area. So this letter of support is been drafted by the municipality. They asked us to review it and include it on the agenda today. And so staff reviewed it and updated it and recommend support for this letter of support, there is one amendment we would like to make and that is on the cc. We would like to add the mayor's office because the municipality is submitting this and they would like a copy of this letter so we would like to go ahead and send it to them if you guys are okay with that. So thank you very much.
I'll go, I'll take a stab at it and then Mr. Jongenelen and I'll, I'll both pass the, yeah, over. So Michelle Nelson and the Chief Administrator officer staff has been actively looking for grant opportunities and, and, and fund federal funding opportunities in conjunction with staff and, and the permit center. And this grant opportunity was, we were made aware of it and the Northern Light, this section of the Northern Lights, Northern Lights corridor is on a high crash network. And some of the, the longer term improvements are, are not, would not be appropriate under this SS four A grant. These, these spot treatments that we're proposing are relatively quick turn projects and they're interspersed along the corridor. It's not a reconstruction of the entire corridor. So that's the reason that the department, multiple departments identified these projects for this grant opportunity. That's why it's moving forward. Aaron, do you have more to add to that?
Vanguard project. I'm actually stepping in for Julie Hanson who was the recent project manager, but she is going into her new role within the department. I'm still getting acquainted with the Academy Vanguard project, the project specifics and design details. However, with me here today online is Stephanie Mello, the project manager for HDL will lead us through the presentation. And Stephanie, feel free to take us away.
Alright, I just wanna make sure before I get started. Yes, thank you. My name is Stephanie Mello, like you said. I am the project manager for Hatten HDL Engineering Consultants. And we're coming here today to kind of get a little bit of feedback. You had a presentation last month on some of the changes that are happening on the Seward Highway O'Malley to Diamond project. And this project is very much connected so we just really wanted to come back and have a conversation and and hear a little bit of feedback. So just so you see where this project is located, we are directly off the Seward Highway on the east side between Abbott Road and Brighton Drive. And this project doesn't actually go the entire way but it, it is going to improve. The intent is to improve the east west direction of flow between Abbott and Brighton.
That is the primary flow of traffic as it exists today. And so the stop sign right now, there's a stop sign at the end of academy where it tees into Vanguard that disrupts honestly the primary flow of traffic and allows for some speeding directly into the neighborhood along Vanguard Drive. So this project has been identified. It is a short-term priority in the MTP and meet several of the federal performance areas. The project will include a realignment that you will see a figure of in just a moment. Non-motorized facilities, intersection improvements, drainage is actually a primary component of this project as well. Very poor aged drainage system and non-existent through part of the corridor. There is some right of way acquisition utility relocations and then the other improvements of signage and other roadside hardware like lighting along the project corridor.
So this is when we went in front of the planning and zoning commission last year. This was the 35% design recommendations. Now with that, there was a caveat because we did let the public know and have the discussion that the only way that the signal at Abbott was warranted was if there was a connection with the highway system underneath the highway system that was proposed with Scooter and with those previous traffic productions. Otherwise a signal is not warranted at that intersection. So we are reevaluating those intersections as we speak. We're going back through the traffic analysis and looking at what the projections are without that highway connection to see what other things could possibly improvements could be done with our project.
This is the preliminary typical section that was recommended previously and is what we are moving forward with. It is aligned with the reclassification of this roadway. 'cause it was originally a minor arterial and it has been reclassified as a class one collector and so it's one lane in each direction with shoulders. And then we do have non-motorized improvements on both sides and trying to keep the separation. So we do have snow storage as much as possible through the corridor. We've done quite a bit of public involvement to date and we will be going back out as we continue through the design and as we approach plans in hand, we'll be going back and having another open house. But we did bring some of these topics of conversation to the transportation fair and got pretty good feedback from some of the community members, regular Abbott Loop community council members and people who live in the area that are familiar with the project.
So what we've heard to date, people are very supportive of the non-motorized improvements because there's nothing out there right now. It is a, it's, it's a, it not exactly strip paved road because there is curb and gutter on the sides of the road, but there are no sidewalks, no trails and there's a lot of actual pedestrian traffic out there. And related to that, there are concerns with speeding in the community because really there's not a lot of traffic control. There is no traffic calming. And so folks do have concerns with speeding going on in their neighborhood. And we did receive both verbal and written support from a number of people for the roundabout that we were proposing because they know that it does keep traffic flow relatively slower when they are designed appropriately. We've heard that taking left turns onto Abbott Road can be very challenging, especially during peak hours. And that many folks, even though it probably is their shortest route, they tend to take alternate routes because they don't like dealing with that conflict. And our safety analysis has shown that there are significant amount of angle crashes occurring at that intersection.
Residents have asked some of the remnant areas of right of way that will remain with the realignment. Their, they have concerns with public dumping. So there's been a number of questions about what's going to happen with that, those remnant areas with the project. And then one that has come up pretty continuously since the beginning of the project has been asking if there is a future project plan to upgrade and improve Vanguard Drive south of our project because they do not have non-motorized improvements along that corridor either. Our project, we are planning on at least providing a sidewalk connection from our corridor down to the first side street that does have a sidewalk. So we're at least connecting to the community on one side of the road with our project.
So as I mentioned, revised assumptions with the Seward Highway O'Malley to Diamond project changing right now. Previously, you know, there was a planned to interchange at this location, so there was a significant increase in traffic by about 10,000 vehicles, 10 to 12,000 vehicles. Well now, right now that planned connection is unknown, but from what I've heard from supporting the, the interaction with the public, the interchange is not a priority for that project, at least not at that location that there are other priorities that they want to look at with that project. And that if, if a connection can be made, not an interchange, but a connection from the east side to the west side of the highway that is supported. But I think there would be additional funding that would be necessary. So that kind of changes the assumptions with our project. So with that, you know, in our original preliminary design we did show both alternatives for the Vanguard Drive intersection.
We showed both a roundabout and a stop controlled intersection with the reduction in traffic volumes in this neighborhood. You know, if there isn't a connection, technically a roundabout is not warranted. There are not a significant enough of of volume of traffic to really necessitate needing a roundabout to, to handle the traffic volumes and have a desirable level of service. So a stop controlled intersection could work, could function, but as I mentioned, there are other reasons to install roundabouts and one of them often is related to traffic calming and, and looking at potential future connections if anything are necessary. So we are still, our project team received a lot of written and verbal support for keeping around about in the project just for the concerns of speeding in this area. And I, I think that's one item of which isn't unknown, but we were hoping to solicit a little bit of feedback from folks up on, on, on desirable of moving forward of this intersection.
And the other intersection, as I mentioned Abbott Road, if we are no longer going to be signalizing, we are looking at other access control measures to remove the left turning conflict that has been a crash pattern, a regular crash pattern that both MOA and DOT have asked us to address and see if there are other things that we can do to potentially provide for pedestrian crossings at this location as well. So we're evaluating a number of options here as well. And what we've heard from the community, at least the folks that we've talked to thus far, is they understand that it is a problem. We didn't hear huge objections if we remove the left turn, but I'm sure there probably will be some concerns. Especially there is a gas station right here on that kind of southeastern ish corner that I'm sure there, there may be some folks that have some questions and comments on that.
So right now we are in design and trying to move towards right of way acquisition, but right now this project has been moved into the illustrative in the FY 27 to FY 30 TIP. So construction will happen at the earliest in 2031 unless something changes. So we have time to continue evaluating this, but like I said, we can't, we wanted to come and have a little bit of a discussion with you to get some feedback on priorities and this is just kind of a list of what we have done and what we continue. We have upcoming tasks, all the things that we're continuing to do and, and that was everything I had. So any questions, comments, or feedback, I would be happy to take it.
Thank you Ms. Mormilo. I'm, I'm, I wanna be sure I heard you correctly that we are not in fact going to end up with a sidewalk to nowhere in this, with this project that the, the sidewalks that are constructed are in fact going to connect to existing pedestrian facilities.
Yes, that is the intent. We will work the adjacent project of the highway project we were matching similar to what they're proposing and then it connects to the existing facilities along Abbott and then we're making a connection to the existing facility along the, a little bit further down Vanguard
Further questions? All right. Hearing none. Thank you. Actually, any comments from the public on this project? Hearing none. Thank you Ms. Mormilo appreciates that. Move on now to item 6B Tudor Road Interchange project presentation. Aaron, who's providing that update please? Galen will start. And just a reminder, you have 10 minutes please.
Hi everybody. Just gonna pass out a packet, Get the screen. All right, my name's Galen Jones. I'm with Alaska DOT here to talk about the Tudor Road interchange project. I'm here with Steve Noble from Dowl. I got Sam Tyler online gonna be working the slideshow. Dowl's been hired to do environmental support services, design and public involvement for the project. So just a quick overview of what we're gonna be getting into today. We're gonna talk about project funding and goals, interchange, background, existing operational and safety issues, public involvement, alternatives, analysis and selection, and then the project schedule. Next slide please. Quick overview of the project area on the north side. We're going about halfway up to 36th Avenue on the west side over to Old Seward Highway on the east side to MacInnes Street and then on the south side down to Campbell Creek, but not in impacting those bridges there. Next slide please. So we have a combination of state and federal funding, mostly federal for design and then future phases will all be federally funded, so final design right of way if needed, utility, relocation and construction. And then the federal portion of the project through the National Highway Performance Program is 93.4% with a 6.6% state match. Next slide please.
So the purpose in need of the project, it's broken out into three categories here. The first one being bridge and then safety and operations in the middle and active transportation on the right side. So the bridge component we are gonna replace the aging bridge. It's also doesn't meet minimum overhead clearance for the Seward Highway. So that's a freight issue and a and a strike risk. And then we want to widen the bridge to accommodate the needs of all user groups. So, and we'll get a lot more into that aspect of it throughout the presentation. Safety and operations, we wanna improve the traffic flow, reduce crash, crash risk for all users and queuing. And then for active transportation specifically widen and enhanced transportation or active transportation facilities like sidewalks, shared use pathways. And then improve safety and connectivity to the roads and major east west connection with lots of destinations on both sides of town. So it's, it's a really important connection. Next slide please.
I'm not gonna read this whole side, but the takeaway from here is the AMATS major corridor study identified it as a critical regional connection for mobility and safety in Anchorage. And then the Midtown congestion relief study in 2020. Identified Tudor Road interchange is one of the most congested and crash pro locations in Alaska. Next slide please. So existing interchange conditions, we've got lots of traffic here, 50,000 vehicles on the Seward Highway, 36,500 on Tudor Road that makes this crossing the highest volume in the state. It's a compressed diamond interchange, not really used anymore, that type of interchange. It's, it's an old suburban design from the fifties and sixties. Pretty narrow non-motorized facilities, only four foot sidewalks minimum and no separation from traffic throughout the project area, although that varies. And then we're lacking any sort of dedicated or marked crossings at MacInnes Street to the east.
And then the bridge, it was built in 1976, so it's over 50 or about 50 years old, exactly 50 years old. And it has an increased seismic vulnerability rating due to this being a really important corridor. So if there were were an earthquake and something were to happen, it would prevent, you know, evacuation mobility during an emergency, things like that. And in addition, the very unique V frame piles that are shown on the inset there that are used for the bridge also create that more vulnerable aspect for, for seismic. But don't worry, the bridge is safe.
Next slide please. Okay, inter existing interchange and bridge issues. This one kind of goes into the, the weeds here. So I'm just gonna mention a few things. That bridge clearance is two feet below minimum standards. So we really wanna, when we rebuild the bridge, we're gonna build that up to 18 feet, which is gonna meet overhead standards for for bridge well clearance site distance issues, the angles intersecting tutor, or sorry, the ramps intersecting tutor road at at acute angles. Those cause operational and site distance issues, traffic platooning, platoons breaking down between signals. Signals are a little too far apart to be a tight diamond interchange, which is more of a contemporary design but they're not far enough to be a true diamond interchange. So they're in this weird awkward distance in the middle that is not very conducive to efficient operations and makes it difficult to coordinate the signals between those two intersections. Next slide.
Some active transportation considerations. I've mentioned some of these already. I wanted to highlight again just that on the east side, the unmarked crosswalks at MacInnes Street and Shelikof Street. So that's all being included in in our traffic analysis. And then a couple of the photos I wanted to mention too, the top one, those highlight the, there's single stage crosswalks so that means that the pedestrian has to cross all those in a single crossing. There's no pedestrian refuge in the middle. And then the bottom photo just shows a narrow sidewalks with limited separation. But I also wanted to point out the bridge railing is pervious, you can hear and see the traffic really well below. So all those things just in combination create a not very comfortable situation for active transportation users. Next slide please. So look a little bit about safety or at the safety performance here for the last 10, for 10 years, starting from 2023 and going back I wanted to highlight on this slide.
So these crash rate boxes, what they show here is the intersection crash rates. So the specific crash rates for these intersections that are, that have the circles around them and then the statewide average for those types of intersections. And all of them are at or above the statewide average. So that means we should fix it. Not shown on here what the crash rate is, but over at MacInnes Street, that's a two-way stop control intersection. It's not signaled we, we don't have that shown on here yet because when this graphic was made, we weren't, it was early on the project, we weren't sure we were looking at MacInnes Street. But that one's also about the statewide average. You can see the three red dots are fatalities and three of those were active transportation users. And then the orange dots are major, are serious injuries. So you can see the clusters around the intersections and throughout the corridor Monte crashes. So that's an important aspect of the project. Next slide please.
This one I'm just gonna touch on but it just shows some photos of, you know, some operations. These weren't at peak hours so it's not the worst that it gets. But in that top photo, one of the things that happens a lot, and it's not really shown here, but traffic will lock the intersection, especially turning traffic or the, the, the traffic that is on the bridge in the turn lanes will extend because there's only one lane turn lane it'll extend through and there's a really long turn lane that extends down Tudor but it'll block the other vehicles at the intersections that are on the ramps from turning and going through the intersections. And that's a problem for non-motorized users too. Next slide please.
So because we're so close to the 36th avenue interchange project, which is Underdesigned currently, just wanted to assure everybody we're coordinating the design with that. Something to highlight here is that we are proposing as part of that project, more regional non-motorized connections on both sides of the Seward highway that go from Tudor up into up to 36 and then up to Benson. And we're looking closely at pedestrian under crossings that Tudor, whether we would have a crossing on the west side or the east side or both, but we're doing the feasibility for that. And then stakeholder engagement will include that topic as well. Next slide please. So the interchange workshop, we had an interchange workshop in November 25 with stakeholders and community members and then an open house in December of 2025. But really just the trend of the feedback was non-motorized safety and comfort. MacInnes street crossings are challenging for non-motorized users especially 'cause there are bus stops right there and so there's not dedicated facilities to cross if you get off the bus you need to go to the other side of the road and then also the desire to solve that congestion during those weeks. Next slide please.
We've done a lot of community engagement especially lately, but just wanted to mention we've gone to a lot of community councils and presented Anchorage Transportation Fair and then agency involvement presenting at amass committees. And then we went to the MLA planning and zoning commission last month and had our concept report approved, which include the preferred alternative that I'm about to describe. Next slide please. So the alternative analysis, I'm gonna skip through or bounce through really quickly these next four slides. But we looked at four main interchange forms, which is the tight diamond, which next one is gonna be the single point interchange. Next one after that is the diverging diamond.
Then the last one we looked at was the displaced left pern interchange concept. Next slide. So we did a compatibility assessment. So look based on certain criteria on the left, capacity, footprint, active transportation, suitability, allowing ramp to ramp movements, that's especially important 'cause we have further roads on the south side. So, and then over height permitted vehicles that can't go under the bridge even if it's up to standards. Sometimes there's vehicles that are even higher than that and so they need to go up and over the interchange. So it's particularly important being this being a freight route that we allow that type of movement. Constructability, you know, how much does it impact the traveling public And then just maintenance operations because we all know that comes outta the state budget. It's important to try to minimize that. Next slide please. Oh well and the tight diamond as you can see.
Actually can you go back Sam? So blue means that it performed the best at this location, yellow in the middle and then red being the lowest performing. So I won't, we could talk for 15 minutes alone about this slide, which actually be fun. But I'll just say that the tight diamond performs the best 'cause it has the most flu. So if you have any questions about specifics on that, we can dive into it And then 22nd left. Okay, next slide please. So here's a cross section on the bridge and it just shows we need to add a turn lane in each direction and then that way we don't have to have super long queuing turn lanes. This is not what the cross section would look like at the crosswalk, which would have two less turn lanes that it would have a 30 foot pedestrian refuge in the middle and have two stage pedestrian crossings.
And then the last slide, the next page is the project schedule. We're gonna be wrapping up preliminary design here pretty soon this summer. And then we'll get into final design, finish that up in 2029 and then build a project 29 to 31 and then just to coordinate with the construction for the 36th Avenue interchange project which would start 2031 and beyond. So we don't wanna build both of these at the same time. So that's why we're rushing to get this one done as fast as possible so we don't have delays building for 36th Avenue interchange, which I'm sure you guys will probably probably giving you a presentation about that sometimes. That's it.
Thank you Galen. Nice job working through that real quickly. Yeah and very informative. Thank you. Any questions or comments from the committee ion Mr. Volland? Thank you. So on the cross section, we'll go back to that I think, yeah, I like the amount of right of way dedicated to active transportation. That should look cool to see that the 10 foot pathway on either side. I guess a couple sort of like design feedback ideas for your consideration. One would be I'm like a bike head slash winter maintenance expert now 'cause I just went to NATO conference. Yep. You know that.
One of the things that we saw there was they would stripe, you know when they had sort of a raised thing like this, you know, up on the curb to separate pedestrian versus cyclist. Yeah. So that might be of interest there. And then also, I really think this is cool to put in the snow storage upper, but with this pedestrian or the traffic barrier and pedestrian railing, I'm curious about how that would work with winter maintenance. I, I wonder if it might be a better idea to have like evenly space kind of like pipe ballards or, or something like this makes it seem like there's almost like a jersey barrier or something. There is. So how does the snow then get into that snow storage area from the bike head? So again, you see what I'm saying? Like you need something I think comparable to get that snow off of that bike head stuff as well as off of the motorized part.
Yeah, if I may through the chair. So that would've to get pushed and hauled out from the sidewalk. It wouldn't be, you know, pushed onto the road because there'd be a barrier there. And we find that this is, you know, if you had a bunch of ballards or things like that, those are all catch points. So that increases safety risk. Somebody could hit those in addition to the snow removal equipment catching on those which can injure the snow, the, the maintenance equipment driver and damage the equipment that is costly. So what would happen is maintenance people would push the snow out and then there'd be snow storage beyond the bridge on either side. And so there would be this jersey barrier that would provide the best protection and they can, we can design it in a way where snow removal equipment can kind of, you know, rest their equipment kind of up against it and get flush with it and it actually works really well. So, and then the eight foot pedestrian comfort and snow storage, that shoulder there that would be used to push snow aside during snow events and then eventually it would get hauled off by snow removal equipment whereas now there's no snow storage at all and we get reduction in lanes, things like that.
Yeah, i I I think it's just philosophically interesting to allow snow to be pushed into a buffer like this from the motorized part of the facility, but not to have that same expectation that it could be displaced from, you know, efficiently from the bike & ped part of the facility. So yeah, I don't know. I mean I could see like a railing going along that there's no nothing but go through the rails for the snow. I mean I, I guess I'd happy to learn more about how a plow could push the entire lake of the bridge, the snow to a designated store snow storage area. That seems gonna be a little interesting but okay, thanks. I follow up. Yeah,
The chair. So it would take two passes, they go down one direction and go back to do the snow on the path. And then there could also potentially be snow removal equipment that could use like a blower type situation that would blow it onto the shoulder from the path is another option. And then I'll just say regarding snow from the road being stored on the shoulder, there's like five times the width and a volume of snow. So if you do a, there needs to be some more room for the vehicles, so like a 10 foot pathway versus you know, like 50 feet on your side for lanes. So that's why thee needs to be additional I think.
What we see often course is snow gets put on the sidewalk, right. So I think that little buffer area helps mitigate some of that. Thanks for your question Mr. Any other comments? I have a comment just as somebody who drives two or twice a day, I am, I really like the, the cross section of the bridge. There's nothing more white knuckling than seeing somebody riding a bike on that four foot sidewalk with 40 mile an hour traffic on the bridge. And the other, the other thing that I think this will definitely help mitigate is especially eastbound going over the bridge, it's very common to have somebody on a northbound turn lane onto turning from the Seward highway, the Tudor, they'll pull out front of high speed traffic 'cause there's a little bit of vertical curve on the bridge and then that that that northbound ramp on the east side is lower than the, there's a site distance issue and it's, it's, it's challenging. So really like this and appreciate the presentation you Yep. Thank you very much.
I noted this in the TAC during public comment but I'll, I'll say it again because the bear's repeating. I'm so delighted that this project is being expanded to include MacInnes and as someone who has been on the four foot sidewalk as a mother with kids trying to like get over this bridge, having, having the distance and the like separated space is just really exciting to contemplate. So yeah, appreciate all the thought that's gone into trying to accommodate, accommodate non-motorized users and also just a crapton of traffic moving through this space. So thank you for being so attentive to all of those. I appreciate it.
Yeah, the chair asked that we put something on here that just talks about AMATS's tribal consultation process. So AMATS does have, or there's an agreement in place between the Municipality of Anchorage and the Native Village of Eklutna that outlines what that process is. They have specific requirements for AMATS maps where we will notify NVE of our committee meetings. We will help with technical assistance and develop process for coordination with our long range plan and TIP. So basically when we do our MTP update and our tip update, we reach out to the native village of Ekultna and we invite them, you know, we ask how they want to be engaged with on that process. And then typically what happens is if they're interested we actually go out to them, sit down with them, walk through the document and get their feedback on anything that we have. Anything in addition there is outlined here about what the Native Village of Eklutna will do, where they will have a representative attend our meetings if they are interested and then work with us on respective documents and things like that.
So it's all outlined there. We do follow this as best we can. I will say that this agreement was noted in our last certification review by FHWA is needing to be looked at again as it is rather old. It was from 2007. So I think taking a few from DOT it might be a good opportunity to review this. I will say as we don't have really our boundary finalized at this point, we might want to wait until our boundary is completely settled so we know whether the native elu is still in our boundary. I hope it is. I love working with them and would like to continue doing forward in the future, but maybe we wait until that is decided before we go and start updating this formal agreement. I'm happy to help answer any questions that you have and it was just an info item to give you an update on where we're at with everything.
Can you get those printed copies please of your distribution? And just apologies for many members and the public for the letters that were outstanding that I have submitted to providing one of which is the no, no, the boundary updates and the reasoning behind the, the requesting at these items to consider. So we just broke those out and, and we've discussed most of these in the committee but this just funds it out. So please back with you and I think we can discuss this as action items and at the end, shortly here, the second letter pertains to the Seward Highway project and our discussion from last month about the ineligibility of funding that needs expended in that project just because of the reduced termini I after the project was removed from the MTP. So yeah, this was a question by Alexa, but I did address the letter to the policy committee here just so we can have that as discussion if needed.
And then this was just provided about 20 minutes before the meeting, so we'll get this out digitally and then post it on online. This is so happy to answer any questions. I understanding we're short on time, this would be something that we bring up in future meetings, but we have been, there's still some outstanding information as to this precise home month but ended up being difficult is just that as we move forward with doing preconstruction activities and, and completing an environmental document, which is all for public comment, we needed to a lot of the costs and for the full scope of the project, 98 to one 18 or more all conferences was hard to break them out. So we're going back through invoices and trying to understand what that is. And that's part of the discussion with Federal Highways anyway, so we get greater refinement on that.
I do wanna call out with Safer Seward. We don't have an official statement in writing from Federal Highways that these costs are ineligible requesting repayments. And so these will be items moving forward. I do put in that letter an official request that we consider adding the safe sewers highway back into the MTP with the understanding that as this project progresses, it needs to be added in the different stages. So right now, this next stage continues to be updating this environmental document, which may have to be truncated if we don't get it back on the end. The benefit for doing this is that we don't have to spend time and money rewriting that document with understanding that it's beneficial to have an understanding of impacts and alternatives which can be presented in that document. So that being, that that effort was underway and it was discussed in the work session, which I wasn't able then, but just wanted to put that on the record, that request.
And we look forward to talking about that further on the roadmap. The purpose of this was to line out topics for upcoming meetings. So my, my request for pertaining to the boundary is that we ask the TAC to go through the boundary in these items and then put forward a recommended boundary back to the policy committee, even if it is exactly as is. But, and just give us this formal ability to take action, whether in hold or on in part, so we can move this process along. It may be, may be better to have official recommendations and then we can have that conversation in a public. So those for for roadmaps, we could also, if we don't wanna take action on those items right now or if the next meeting just schedule out certain items like I broke them out and run through a, that we perhaps we could take like two at a time each month and ask the test the app to focus on them as it makes sense for them.
We have made progress on several of these items where we're finding that middle ground and documenting the, the need for boundary changes and we're trying to support the staff of, of both MS and DOT and, and having that. So apologize that my voice is low everyone, but that pertaining to boundaries that would be great to get action in future meetings. We can move that along. And then secondly, discussion on Seward Highway for the MTP through that process. Great to have that as well. And then the third thing for road roadmap action item. Following our last meeting we had discussed getting some further documentation on process to help with, you know, formalizing or documenting different items such as documentation for, for things like non changes. And what we could propose is that the pack, just get a list of items that they feel may be beneficial. Not that we, but just getting a list of the updated policies and procedures and ones for guidance, best practices, something like that. Then we can continue just to build up on, on that so that it talks further with our, but I understand our time so I'll, I'll stop there. Seward
Thank you Chair. We have five minutes left. Offer briefly if there's any questions or comments from the committee on this. Otherwise we can, I presume this can be an agenda item for board discussion in the future meeting. Hearing no comments. Any comments from the public? No comments from the public.
Hello. Thank you. I'll, I'll keep this quick I promise. My name is Alexa Dobson. I'm the executive director of bike anchorage. Just wanted to throw out some preliminary thoughts on the safer seaward highway project. The DOT letter that just dropped. Y'all may not have had a chance to read it yet, but I have. So here's some things to keep in mind as you're looking at it. The letter is rhetorically crafted to make it sound like this is an innocent little safety project that was caught up in a procedural misunderstanding but that is not what happened here. AMATS made a policy decision to remove this project from the MTP reflecting serious public concern about the scale, cost, environmental impacts and underlying justification for this massive highway expansion. DOT knew that decision had been made and chose to continue advancing corridor ride work anyway. They are now facing the predictable consequences of that choice and asking AMATS for a bailout.
The audacity now frankly the situation reflects a much larger pattern. We continue to see from DOT where they ignore public feedback, dismiss stakeholder concerns and continue trying to force major highway expansion projects onto a community that has clearly said no. The letter insists that public feedback matters. Design changes are still possible. Stakeholders will continue to have opportunities for input on the project, but recent experience gives us very little reason to trust those assurances. The letter fails to acknowledge any of the serious and severe issues with the project and its draft environmental assessment issues like manipulating data and lying to the public. This is not an agency that is ready to take responsibility for its actions and engage in good faith with the public. So I would strongly caution aim at against accepting the framing that this is just a technical funding issue and can be fixed by quietly putting the project back into the MTP and sorting out the details later. The details themselves are the issue, the scale of the project is the issue and the underlying philosophy that widening highways is the default solution to transportation problems. That is the issue. AMATS was right to remove this project from the MTP and I urge the committee to stand by that decision. DOT brought this mess upon itself by deliberately disrespecting the public process and they should take responsibility for their own actions. Thank you.
I appreciate that. I will be brief, I will just conquer through with Ms. Dobson that AMATS should not green light further work based on this EA Safer Seward highway environmental document, rejected reasonable safety alternatives and it's premised on inaccurate safety data. It ignores the induced traffic volumes and induced speeding and it ignores hazards and delays from new intersection designs. And that's just some of it. The level of data manipulation has broken the public's trust and I encourage you not to allow this EA to continue to be the basis for this project. Thank you.
Meeting here. Yeah we can skip that one. It is more of just where we wanna meet. So looking at it, we have the main conference room at the permits building is open. It wasn't open for this meeting but it looks like it's open at future meetings. One of the things I need to know from you all is do we need to change the start time of the TAC meeting or are we still okay with leaving it at one o'clock even though we're in a new building?
Yes, that's okay. That'll work for everybody. Yes. Oh okay. Well that was quick. Sounds good. Just as a reminder to everybody, so the next policy committee meeting on June 18th will be at one o'clock and it'll be in the permit center main conference room. So the same room where the technical advisory committee needs. And since we have just a few seconds extra, one of the big items on that agenda is gonna be the MTP projects that we had that work session on. So we'll make sure to send out the safe sewer letter that you just provided to us today, the committee members as well as the boundary item. We'll send that to you all. I guess one thing from you all, do you want an action item on the next TAC and policy committee about this boundary document? How do you want me to proceed? I'm a little not sure.
I think we all, yeah, appreciate that one. Administrative, oh goodness, sorry, one administrative detail. We actually, I can, I don't know about others but I continue to have two AMATS policy committee calendar invitations. One of them is at one o'clock and one of them is at one 30 and I keep deleting the one 30 invitation but our alternate on the assembly had the same question. So his calendar has a one 30 and a one o'clock for this meeting. I don't know how we go about getting the one 30 deleted but that would be really lovely.
We'll look into it. Thank you. So I think follow up on that is on that item, if at the very least we can ensure as an informational item and my request was to at least have the TAC begin to put recommendations forward, even if it's not an action on the policy committee side, but the action be on the TAC to actively work through boundary issues. And then if there are recommendations that they can put forward that would allow us to start absorbing forms over multiple months so that that was something considered there but that think is important to keep it on that agenda items so we can, we can move up, make progress in our dialogue.
We can have it as part of the roadmap for AMATS items. So it's already kind of intended on being there and we can make sure to send it out and I can let it know in the email. Please start reviewing this. It'll be an informational item so if they have questions they can ask for it. We can get that dialogue going so we're not waiting until July to get the questions asked.
Is there any objections to that? We can put it as the first one. I think typically what we've been doing is putting the consultants and stuff that have to present first. So maybe we can do it as after any of those just to give them their opportunity to present so they aren't having to stick around for the whole time, if that's okay. Okay. We can go ahead and move that on.
This is hidden text that lets us know when google translate runs.