April 02, 2026 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM
To each speaker. After the committee discusses each item, members of the public will be invited to comment. Housekeeping items For virtual attendees, please keep your camera off unless you're speaking. For those attending by phone, press star six to mute or unmute. And ammas committee meetings are audio recorded and posted to our ammas webpage and the YouTube page. Real quick, we have made a little slight adjustment to our agenda. As you can see, there's some more detail posted on the agenda maybe than what we have done in the past. And it's, its a little, we recently attended an ADA training, I don't know if it call it training, but an ADA meeting on the municipalities web pages and the ADA requirements that are coming up on the federal requirements. And during that, it was part of the conversation that we needed to make some changes to Ammas process as well to help with accessibility.
So what you see before you is a lot more information on here. So when people aren't actually having it read to them, that it tells them what is going on so they don't have to rely on visual cues as much, plus some other changes. So you will see those changes coming to the AMATS website. To the Ammas documents. You'll probably be getting contacted by Christine if you are an AMATS funded project to be making some changes to your AMATS or to your project website as well. So just as a heads up that that'll be coming along. Thank you.
Thank you. Aaron. The agenda that I saw online was just from the website or from the email. I didn't see the PDF for it, so I don't have this exactly right before me. So I might be a little bit more reliant on hop walk walking through today's agenda than usual. Okay, so item number three is approval of the agenda. Do we have a motion for approving the agenda?
Moved by member Babb, second by member White. Any discussion or changes? Okay. Are there any objections to approving the agenda? Hearing none. The agenda is approved. Next up on the agenda are the meeting minutes for March 5th, 2026. Do we have a motion for approving the minutes? I move to approve the minutes as prepared. Moved by member Kohlhaas. Second. Second. Second. Member Babb. Are there any discussion or changes or amendments needed to the minutes? Okay, hearing no changes, are there any objections to approving the minutes? Okay, hearing none. The March 5th, 2026 minutes are approved. Moving on then to item five A, the ARRC transit asset management, TAM target recommendations there will be manage managing that for us.
Be me real quick. So as you may recall, every year we are required to stock asset management targets for public transportation providers within the AMATS boundary. We've already done it for the public transportation department for the municipality of Anchorage and now we have both for us the Alaska Railroad Corporation TAM targets. So as an MPO, we are required to adopt 'em or set our own targets, you know, support them or adopt our own targets. Historically, AMATS has supported the railroad in their targets. AMATS itself doesn't manage or oversee any of the railroad infrastructure, the rolling stock, the equipment, the facilities or the track. So we take typically just work with the railroad programming projects into the tip to support them and then support them in their asset management targets. So the updated 2026 targets are before you today. We also have posted the asset management document provided to us by the Alaska Railroad and staff's recommendation is to recommend to the policy committee adoption of the 2026 ARRC TAM targets. Thank you.
Moved by Member Dueber, Seconded by Member Bowland. Are there any, any discussion or amendments? Hearing none. Are there any objections to approving the motion? Okay, hearing none. The motion is approved. So move on then to item five B, bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee. Vision zero letter
Hi everyone. Emily Wiser. I'm the non-motorized coordinator for AMATS as well as staff to the bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee. So this letter, you first saw the previous version back in October that went to the policy committee on your recommendation and they suggested bringing it back to the BPAC for some changes that they requested. We, we had thought of just bringing it directly back to the policy committee, but it's been a while now. The BPAC didn't have quorum at their next meeting and then their following meeting was just in February and then we didn't have time on the March agenda for these committees. So since it's been a while and there have been some changes, and this is a highly relevant topic, we figured we'd bring it back to the TAC for you all to take a look at this new version and see if you have any comments or else recommend that the policy committee approve it to be sent to the recent, this is one of those cases where it comes, the letter will be from the BPAC to the recipients unless the policy committee decides to adopt it and you know, find it themselves as well.
Me and the DOT Central region director, which I guess in this case would be the deputy commissioner commissioner, which does put me in kind of an odd situation where, I mean given, given how we typically do with these, I don't, I mean, yeah it does raise a question. Do I recuse myself? If it's a a unanimous voting, I don't see an issue with that. If it's gonna be by voice, you know, then maybe it makes sense to review, excuse myself in the vote. But mostly these letters, it typically is pretty easy just to recommend that it gets sent to us. It's not decided on any response. So I don't see a problem personally from voting to have a letter be sent to me. So it's not like decisions being made on, on my end necessarily to, I guess the thing that you added in member back to have it adopted is a little different than it's sent to me. So, so
Chair, I'll last time you did recuse yourself from this and let the committee discuss, it's up to you how you wanna handle it. If you wanna recuse yourself from the voting, that's fine. You can still help run the voting if you're okay with that as long as you know what she's gonna
Do. Yeah, I guess given that you incorporated that part into it does raise a question of you, right? Want this to Yeah, can I really speak to that piece? So, so yeah, I think I do need to recuse myself of that conversation. Voting. Is there an issue if I run the discussion? Maybe a little bit?
Just have a general comment. Just, you know, we've been meeting with DOT routinely with the topic of the Vision Zero forum and we're all looking for opportunities for safety. So further hearing from Ameds and Bpac on being informed to hear more voices, I think it's just beneficial.
I guess I would just second kind of what Melinda brought up there. Appreciate the partnership here between DOT and and the municipality and working towards these Vision Zero goals. And also thanks to PAC for revisiting the, the letter and continuing to to track these, these efforts here. Inquire about the status.
Aaron? Yeah, I'll do quick intro and then it'll be up for discussion. So this item is before you remind you that at the March 19th policy committee meeting project team provided a presentation on the status of the project. They also came to the technical advisory committee and provided a status on it as well. And in that presentation there was discussion about a one way option being looked at as part of the project and there was a request from the press team. What, what do they do with this? Do they look at it or not? There's also discussion with the policy committee members including a comment from a policy committee member that they should look at a one-way option as part of this project. So this item is before you today for that discussion. As a reminder, it was an informational item at the policy committee in TAC last month. So no action could actually be taken on it. So it is before you today for action to be taken on whether or not a one-way option should be looked at as part of the 32nd Avenue project and if a traffic study is required. As part of that, 'cause there was some discussion about whether a traffic study is needed. So it's before you today for that I can help answer any questions if you have them. Thanks.
Yeah, my question is, was this project, I, I'm still new to the a a so I'm, I don't know the history of it, but was this project ready to go? Is this one that was ready to start construction this year? And will we delay it if we vote to extend this or have another study done on this one?
So this project's in the preliminary design and environmental phase. And so we're currently working through the, the NEPA process. The proposal proposal here to look at a one way wasn't included in the public meeting that went forward for the project. So it was an alternative that was prevented presented to the public as part of the environmental process. So if it is included, there's, there's some schedule impacts and additional costs that would go into evaluating the one way and then also presenting that to the public.
I think, I think that would fit within the timeline that we've got there and I, we've got members from the design team here, I, they may be able to answer some of those questions there. I think at the end of the day when we're gonna go present this to the public, some idea of what the traffic change in traffic looks like so that we can explain that to folks in the neighborhood of, you know, how folks may reroute through the, through the neighborhood would be appropriate. So I dunno if anybody team has that or
As far as the traffic analysis being the reason for the delay, really the amendment to the PSA contract between the main, the main reason for the delay and we already have to do that before the public involvement changes regardless of whether the traffic analysis is part of that. Speak to your name. I'm Travis Holmes, the DOT project manager. Thank you.
Background. PME has been involved in this corridor back when we started the project Lois Drive and West 32nd Avenue and it was actually pathway project, it was focused on non-motorized facilities. Originally it was focused on lois and then recognizing that there's congestion and aquarium school as well as other factors and wanting a linked pedestrian mode in there as well. So from our background, you know, we're looking at a lot of different factors and I don't know how much we wanna get into this now my time to do this. Okay. So one of the most critical piece I think is worth noting is Anchorage Fire Department and as a stakeholder consideration and functional consideration for life safety. Ooh, PE spoke with fire marshal Brian Dean and what they noted about Anchorage Sand's apartment complex in the more narrow segment where it's only 30 foot right away is they consider that a high risk occupancy because it's not sprinkled and it's, there's no fire alarms.
They also have a history of responding to multi alarm fire events, which includes multiple response units dispatched from their perspective they need a minimum range of 26 feet road width. They also noted that two lanes allow adequate room for one setup and then the other fire apparatus to be able to pass through. And sometimes you have again, multiple, multiple fire apparat, multiple fire apparatus sending to the fire response. The other thing that PME has consulted with as far as another stakeholder is our street maintenance 32nd is currently on their school route haul out or snow haul out list. So that is part of their normal operations and for them to manage their snow hauling needs, they look to having two lane widths to support side by side haul off with the, the dump truck and the blower working side by side in tandem. You know, some of the other considerations to think about too are, you know, when we were looking at local roads in particular is all the service accommodations that happen in on a local roadway with having kind of the highest access need for maintenance vehicles, delivery postal solid waste vehicles that require corridor maneuver maneuverability on local roads.
So when you have vehicles stopped, having more room provides, you know, movement within that corridor. But the other thing that I wanted to point out, going back to the design study report, PME with CRW followed the contact sensitive solutions process and you know, they, it's, it's recognized that it's, it's a challenging road because of the varying right away width. But also one of the things that they also looked at is how the Sand's apartment building impacts safety as far as introducing a non-motorized facility right in front of where there's full frontage driveways that have direct pullout and backing out it it, you know, poses a potential risk or hazards in conflict points. So in, in the alternatives that were looked at, they considered a pathway from the west side on the north side and then crossing the street and then routing along the south side of the roadway from the segment that's in front of the apartment building to avoid that potential conflict. So I will also note that the report also notes that a one-way alternative was considered. So one of the biggest factors that MOA traffic engineering expressed concern about was compliance for one way streets in the neighborhood.
So that was also heard before the planning and zoning board or commission and they also noted that there was a lot of attention of looking at alternatives considering all of the constraints and all of the factors and making sure that we have adequate roadway configurations. So I just wanted to share some of that history. For example, in the planning staff report, the project was noted the project had initially considered a one way road option but there were concerns with traffic circulation and compliance and one way road option was not analyzed as a cross section so it was screened out. But I think the bigger thing that's coming to mind is, is really how anchor fire department use this corridor and needing adequate space for life safety response
Hi everyone, I Melinda, thanks for that background. I, I appreciate it. My understanding is similar to yours with the fire concerns and the snow maintenance concerns and I think I would, I have one question which is if we, what are the implications if we just did the traffic study and not the full, I guess like is there a way that we can reduce the amount of delays with like a one or an either or in the proposal or is it basically like if we're gonna change the contract, the PSA, like should we just do both the traffic study and a full exploration of the one way? And that's a question for the, for DOTI
Think in general it'd be going back for that that public meeting is probably the long lead item that we've got here. And so it's, I don't think the traffic study necessarily holds things up on this. It's that the alternative wasn't provided as part of the public comment period.
I see. Okay. Okay. So I think I started to say two things at once. Thank you Luke. The thing I do wanna say is I hear a lot of what the concerns are and I do personally do not believe that the one way is going to come out as the top preferred alternative. But in our current environment of I think that there is just some distrust in government at all levels, I think that there is a lot of value in taking a look at this and potentially delaying this project and just making sure that we are being responsive to the community who's requesting this. I I have some a mats, non-motorized projects which we have seen come to the technical advisory committee that have been delayed sometimes years due to the same exact thing and in the end it has made those projects more defendable.
And so I do think that there is like a balance of, okay, are we wasting resources pursuing something that is technically we already know is not the best option. Yeah, I think we are doing that, but is the trade off value in building trust with our local community worth that? Yeah, I do think it is worth that. So I, I think that I will be voting to take a look at this one way option. Understanding that it's really frustrating from a technical standpoint to, to have to go through a process when, when you, when people as experts in their field are saying this isn't a great option and from the very beginning. So this is difficult and I really appreciate everyone's work but I do think ultimately in the public sector we do have a duty to make sure we are being transparent to the community and we have stronger projects in the end when we do that. So thank you everyone.
AM amens Okay. SDBG. It's an AM amens project so decisions for the project need to come through the AMS process. Okay. It's not a unilateral decision by DOT or the municipality anchorage on what gets looked at and what doesn't get looked at. Just as to remind everybody policy committee is the ultimate authority for AM a s funded projects. And I'll just note on my end it looks like this might have been missed at some point because I don't remember anything coming forward that a one way was not gonna be looked at as part of this project. So maybe in the future we can have better collaboration with the MPO on AMMAS funding projects. Go ahead. Number,
I'd also like to further note, it's not necessarily that it was never looked at and thank you for the question Mr. White, because I don't mean to confuse the difference between when this was a bond funded project, you know, under P'S administration because it did start over. So with, in respect to the process, I'm only bringing this up for context, but I think looking at kind of like what did change, even if we do study it, you still have the same constraints, you still have the same life safety considerations. Hearing broadly from Anchorage Fire Department, to me it is a constraint area. Sand apartment building likely has nonconforming rights since it was built probably before in the, before the seventies. So I, I don't think there's a lot of new things on how are we going to be able to reallocate that given that footprint need that the fire department needs
I just wanted to say thank you for the background information, the additional information on this project, none of these items came up at the last meeting. So I was hearing a lot of concern from members of the public members of this committee about pedestrian safety and you know, various reasons that a one way might be considered for this, this project and which is I was the one who asked that it be added to the agenda so that the policy committee could take action one way or the other and provide some solid direction to, to the project team. I think this information is information that it would be good for the policy committee to have as well. So I will be asking if we can forward this discussion to the policy committee so that we can have that discussion again with all of this information and the, the public is aware of the decisions that were made and why they were made and what the considerations are including potential delays in the project because I think we all are not interested in delaying another project. So that was the intent in adding this to the, the agenda. And I hope that the committee members will support me in, in my wish to move this discussion for further to the policy committee of deliberation.
And I, I guess on that it's already on our agenda, which means that it is already gonna be on their agenda. So they will already have the discussion on this. I think what's before us is do we recommend anything? Do we recommend that policy committee direct the project team to include a one way? Do we, do we make any recommendation of what they do or just request that all of they consider all of the documentation and the points being made and that it be on the record so that a policy decision can be made and that there can be clarity in the process that the decision making body of AMAs, the policy committee has made a decision with regards to the one way whether it proceed or not. So that it is a decision that's made so that as member Keegan mentions, if in a year or two people ask what happened to the one way to be able to point to the policy committee decided based on prior analysis that was performed that it's not moving forward.
It was a lot more defensible than how it wasn't even considered as part of this process. It was part of the other process. But what do we have to like clarify that and, and refine that is is part of what's in, in my mind and my, my question, one thing that I will say is that study that you mentioned was before my time, so I wasn't aware of of it. I wasn't aware of all those decisions. So this process we're going through now was the first that I had actually heard of the project and I, I have been somewhat shocked that the, the one way was not even ever like considered something that could be considered going forward. So it was a huge shock considered, it was a huge shock for me that oh we can't even look at it one way. This is like the beginning of a process, like why can't we even look at this was my reaction. So hearing that something had happened before I came on gives me a little bit more comfort that oh okay, I'm not just being blindsided by the fact that we can't look at this. There has been a lot of work going into it
But yeah, I just wanna voice it. That's kind of what I've been feeling like struggling with. It seems like a pretty straightforward, simple process and it's, yeah, I've been struggling with just my own emotions on like what's going on with this small, small tiny like 32nd avenue project that we can't even Yeah, so, but I appreciate all the background. That is extremely helpful. Thank you for coming with that information.
Thank you. I'd like to emphasize one more piece just because as it did go through CCC and there was a, a resolution 20 21 0 0 9. So that might provide additional context and you know, it even it it acknowledges that the petitioner worked closely with the public, including these resident residents immediately affected by these changes. Petitioner could carefully considered and put a lot of thought into the most effective design possible with the parameters of the corridor. There was a lot of recognition of all of the constraints. It did identify in the staff report that it was, you know, a consideration for the one way which was screened out because of these other broader factors.
So for all the other pieces though was it looked at, I mean now in the traffic shooting department, we've got one way streets all the time and you know, if we were concerned people wouldn't, I would say the people that live there, they should know what it is. Maybe they'll have occasional visitor but it's a narrow road. So I sure would hope that we have people driving that would be able to know this was a one way. So I'm not sure I can see that part of that, but that's not reason enough for me from a traffic standpoint to feel of the same opinion. So I mean, but the emergency standpoint that's different.
I have a question which is, is there a way to make the existing language more robust in the current process? Like basically just pull it along and describe it more wholly so it wouldn't require a full change of consultant effort but just be better communication about how we got to where we are more, more visible information.
I think we could probably work with the project team to, you know, maybe incorporate some of the past decisions that were made into maybe the final version of the environmental document to kind of foster that trust a little bit and kind of walk through some of the reasoning behind this wasn't or why this wasn't evaluated as an alternative in the NEPA process. So that we have that. Any issues with that?
I think just a comment in that on future projects, it sounds like we have some work to do on the clarity of the process itself related to projects that might start with the uni and then move to amap and decision decision points on those projects. If a project does switch from one funding source to another, I feel like there's there's some muddiness in in where those decisions were were made and maybe that's a, a conversation for PME and and Aass to have as a side and a aside after, you know, separate from this project entirely so that we don't find ourselves in the situation.
I think in terms of decision making here by AMAs, I think the timing of this one's unfortunate with where we're at in the already having a public meeting on this one. But I think this is a good discussion venue for these types of, you know, elements for the project. We make lots of different small to large scope element changes just in the development of any project. So knowing where that is, I know there's, there's a balance there, right? Of of how often we revisit scope elements here as as a committee and that, you know, going through the policy. So yeah, it would be happy to participate in some of those discussions. Make sure we're, yeah,
Okay. Yeah and agreed. I I think that it's important to, to know when it's appropriate to make those, those changes. It feels like at this stage in the project it's better to, can take these sorts of questions into consideration now rather than at 65% or later for sure. So that was what I was hoping to do with this is to address these, these questions now so that there aren't further questions later on down the road after a alternative that's been selected.
Just follow up. Yeah the earlier we can have these conversations in the project delivery, the better off and the easier it is to catch changes like this and you know, we can go back and revisit this. I mean this is something the project team would be happy to do if that's the decision for policy, but there there are costs and schedule impacts on we make changes further down the line, the bigger those costs and schedule impacts always seem to be.
Today looks like we're not moving quite enough to keep the lights on. There you go. One other thing that I also did wanna speak, speak to on the question here of a traffic study. 32nd Avenue is a low volume local street. It does have the school which right now is directing their pickup drop off to be westbound one way westbound activity and it's, it has cleared up some of the concerns that used to exist on this street from a traffic standpoint. Looking at Minnesota Drive itself, there's a left turn lane to head westbound. And so if a one-way was to be looked at from a traffic standpoint, I and my staff have no issues with a one-way westbound and don't feel like a traffic steady would be needed. Just we could even write a quick one page, here's why this would work. Anybody that's turning right eastbound right turn is the only movement allowed eastbound at Minnesota could go one blocks south to 33rd with minimal out of direction travel.
It's only in the neighborhood of 50 peak hour trips. It's not sending a lot of traffic to 33rd. So from a, you know, I guess my initial reaction when we had this conversation was that it was gonna needle a huge traffic study and it was gonna lay things months and that felt a little bit overkill from a traffic standpoint. I think you're right from the public standpoint going out to the public, that's really where the, the timeframe comes into it. But if we, if it would be helpful for us to provide anything with regards to a traffic study to address this, to talk about how we minimize wrong direction travel, if it is a one way all of the things we would be happy to contribute and to to help with if that's what ends up happening. If it goes into where the policy committee decides not to consider one way and uses the documentation and all the explanation, especially from a emergency and snow maintenance standpoint, then you know, if that's very understandable from our perspective.
But I just want to reiterate from a traffic standpoint and those of us in the traffic engineering department right now, don't consider there to be unreconcilable issues with a a westbound one way on on this project. So if there's reasons to not do on one way in our minds it's not, it's not a traffic safety issue. 'cause we do have some concerns of having a narrow sidewalk being the only thing that's provided along this segment. If it is a two way just on narrow everything is around 32nd avenue isn't like the backbone of our network in this area, but the Minnesota INL project was looking at potentially having a crossing and if we put a signaled pedestrian crossing right here at 32nd and we don't have commiserate pedestrian bicycle connectivity, it's, it's just a gap in the network. So those other things are far enough in the future that I don't know how it's gonna turn out, but there were, those are some of the things that I guess were on our mind as we thought about some of the benefits of, of different options on 32nd. So however, what we can do to provide help on this, we would be happy to.
Sure. I've got one more comment from the fire department 'cause I thought it was interesting they said it's, it's not so much that it's a one way, it was just all about the space and the width that they needed. They said if it was a one way they would do anything during the response going backwards against in a one way for the response. So I I thought that was kind of interesting. So it's,
If I ask a technical question, I don't know if you'd be able to answer this for the fire department, but would any paved surface that's that's constructed properly to support a a, the stance for the firetruck with that work? Or is it that they specifically need 26 feet of roadway? Roadway?
That's a, that's an interesting question because that in my mind means that pretty much any, any roadway in the muni is going to need to be 2060 in width period. I mean it it almost eliminates the, the one one lane, one way road from our inventory just due to fire safety. Is that, am I reading that?
I and agree. Absolutely. I just think it's important that the, the community understands that, that it's a limitation and how narrow folks might be able to get it due to those considerations. So like I was saying earlier, the reason this is on the agenda is because I asked for it to be here, I had two main big concerns, well three, one that we did not provide any direction to the project team and they left uncertain as to how to receive the, the input that they had gotten at the, the pc and then also the concerns I was hearing from traffic about pedestrian safety and, and other safety issues with the two way there in that particular piece of the, the roadway. But then also the project delays. Like if we did suggest adding this system as an alternative, then would it delay construction? Maybe it would delay design, but it is, is it also going to push the construction timeline out? So those are the three I had. I feel like most of that has been addressed with maybe the exception of the, the timeline. It sounds like it would have an impact on the construction timeline or just the, the design finalizing the design.
Yeah, I I everyone will feel a lot more comfortable with where this project is with the policy decision on it. So I appreciate you putting it on the, the agenda and perhaps so that we could talk about it and it can be documented and then it can be clear. So I I make sure about it. They're not having the same discussions that we're having now and wondering about it, but there's a lot more clarity and I apologize that I wasn't up on all the oh, work that was done previously.
First director wanna start out by, by saying that I am a stand fully supportive member Lau's comment, right? I say that because she has been kind of standout to standing alone on this issue it seems like from the discussion here. So I just want to express my support for her as a director of public works responsibility for ation of project like this. They're shared, excuse me, shared with DOT risk largely in my umbrella. So I just wanna make that point. We've got a lot of discussion both here and across the city with respect to DOT projects and MA projects regarding delays and the need for things in the ground and, and, and make work happen. That's one of the reasons that I think Ms. Cole has made those comments so that I remain concerned as others have expressed that delays a four month or six month delay, almost certain needs the loss of winter construction. We know a project creep happens, we've seen project creep on Bernard Road, we've lost Bernard Road, we're very likely to lose year on fire. We valid discussions on those, but we're gonna lose yours on those. We'll probably lose a year on this one if this moves forward.
I, I a hundred percent respect comments made regarding the, the, the idea of moving this forward so that it can be showed that it was fully vetted to whatever degree it needs to be vetted. However, I think that when you have technical experts and operational experts like street maintenance and the fire marshal and others saying that this presents a significant challenge for how they do operations respect to public safety and trans transportation, I think that those things, those comments should bear a lot of weight in decisions that this body makes. I know that I'm, I'm still not exactly sure and I don't need an answer as to impetus for this one way idea. I know that some of it is circled around or recycled around the trans the vehicle transportation issues and the congestion created at the school. I think my understanding is that the school through voluntary communications with the parents has solved at least a large part of that by suggesting that parents leave the site westbound.
So it's, it's eliminated some of that congestion. So I think that the school has worked to solve a problem and it's not a perfect solution, but they've worked to solve it. And what is on the table now, if it sort of proceed and be implement, it would be a solution that maybe is in part intended to address a problem that might occur two days, two hours a day, 175 school days a year. But the solution is a 365 day impact on the residents who live in that area. And I think that's worth consideration of the body.
And I, I guess the last thing I would offer is that there's a, there's a comment in the chat, I don't want to call up Mr. Telford, but he put the comment in public the chat, and I think that at some point that question, another question should be, should be looked at when, when should these discussions come up? At what point should projects be scoped and, and the decision made that they move ahead and what, what, what is the, the role of am a's technical committee and the policy committee in directing the detailed project level design decisions on a project with that all. So yeah. Thank you.
Thank you. I just wanted to express a little bit of concern about the discussion I heard today. It seemed to have been applied that there's safety concerns with a low volume local roadway only having a five foot sidewalk on one side. And I wanted to, you know, just express the concern. We're going through the process right now of updating the design jury manual. We're looking at ways to sort of bring the cost of capital improvement projects down. And I think that some of that discussion has included the idea that in some cases on low volume local roadways, it's appropriate to have only one sidewalk instead of two. And it may also be appropriate to not have a sidewalk depending on the context. So the discussion seemed to imply at least that this low volume local roadway having only a five foot sidewalk on one side is an unsafe condition. And I just wanted to bring that to the attention that those comments are kind of contradictory to maybe some of the other things that are being done, including some subdivisions that have come in and requested variances from sidewalks and gotten those approved. Can you state
Thank you. Yes, I'm Sarah Prescott and I'm speaking just for myself today. I lived in this neighborhood, I can see my old house on, you know, the planning maps. I lived in this neighborhood for 10 years and so I'm very familiar with the traffic situation that happens here. And I'm not exactly sure I can envision the one way and how it would assist necessarily. I, I want to see the whole thing and I appreciate the comments that have been made about can we see the studies, you know, and make sure that we've gone through that process. But as someone who for 10 years was in and out of this neighborhood, that left turn lane from Minnesota also gets really backed up at school time. And so I don't know that it eases any congestion there if we're doing one way westbound on 32nd Avenue or if it just increases an opportunity to block the road entirely by pickup parents who might just sort of park in the road entirely if we're all going the same direction.
I would love to see some traffic studies on that. And where I moved is also directly across the street from a school again, and I will say that no one stopped at crosswalks. Like no cars stop at crosswalks, even if there's little kids trying to cross the street. I don't know if that's necessarily, you know, this committee or dots or the munis problem to solve as part of this design. But it's something to keep into consideration if we're gonna have westbound moving traffic with a crosswalk. If you're gonna have kids darting into traffic to a parent's car that might be on the opposite side of the road. So those are just my observations looking at this as someone who lives there a long time and, and did get kind of frustrated with that traffic situation. But I love that it has sidewalks. So thank you for this work and I'm done.
Alex Reed, preliminary design and environmental chief at DOTI just wanted to clarify something, not just for this project, but projects in general. We select alternatives to the process. You go through that process. We're looking at different impacts. It's a wide range of impacts and we're communicating that to the public as we go through the process. A lot of discussion on traffic studies. Sometimes we're doing things to look at an impact. So it's not necessarily an engineering decision. It might not have the safety concern, it might not have the capacity concern, but 50 vehicles per hour going through a street, a local street that didn't formally have it is an impact to the public. And that is something we would look at within a project. We would make sure to convey that public to the public will choosing alternatives and that would be part of our decision process. So it's a lot of different steps and things we're looking at. Just wanna make it clear like there's, there's a lot of different things we need to look at as we're going through it. And in this project specifically that we're talking about, that would be the thing that we would wanna convey to the public is your road is gonna change if there's 50 additional vehicles in power. And that's something we should make available to everybody. It's part of the process. That's it. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Bob Dole, director of Community Economic Development. I concur with Mr. Col base's comments. I'm surrounded by experts born the S field. I am concerned about public process though, and when we take something to the PC planning and zoning commission and ask the public to participate, I think it is important that they know what the value is and they don't read five years later that, oh, it's going back again despite the effort they put in where we have looked at specific things. We ask a lot of our community residents to participate in the process. It's important that they know we value what they brought their input back to.
So I added it to the agenda. I, I'll make a go ahead and make a motion to recommend to the policy committee that they request that the project consider a one way as to be included as part of the study for the 32nd Avenue project. And I would like to, if I can add a comment to that, maybe I'll wait for the second if there's a second before I comment on it.
I'd like to just comment that I, after the information provided today, I, which I really appreciate because I feel that that information is information that is important for the public to understand what the considerations are regarding the timeline, the safety, the fire potential, fire issues, snow storage, et cetera. So I still would like this to to be under consideration of the policy committee, but I have serious reservations about the, the potential delay. So maybe there's, I can make an amendment to my own motion that if they do consider adding this as part of the study, that they take into consideration the potential delay of up to a year that that might entail. So I guess I'm making an amendment to my own motion. I don't know if we need to do that formally. Yes. Okay.
Melisa, I think I would rather, I would rather the amendment include something along. This is Taylor speaking something along the lines of re to like reasonably include exploring the alternative, the one-way alternative in a way that also mitigates exorbitant delays to the project. Do you know what? It's a nuance, but I would second something along those lines.
Sorry, to be clear. So I think the, the final motion, Taylor, help me with this, if you don't mind. The final motion would be to recommend to the policy committee that they request that the 32nd Avenue project team add a one-way alternative to the study for consideration. And that that study, that request. Taylor, this is where you need to jump in, that the, the project team includes include consideration of the timeline,
I don't know if it's expediting it, I think it's just including it in a way that reduces impacts on the timeline and the budget. So I think like making the materials associated with the preferred alternatives more robust. And I think if there is a way to justify the one way option in a way that maybe it doesn't require a full exploration, but brings along all that information that we discussed today to help shed light on why it wasn't, that would also be acceptable. So not, so I think like what would be ideal is that a one-way option is explored, but what would be an acceptable, what would be the next best thing is further clarifying why the one-way option didn't make it to the current stage of consideration. That didn't make it simpler, but that's what,
I feel like the recommending that, that it could be considered is one thing. Recommending that the documentation, documentation of the prior work that's been done, the explanations, maybe some updated perspective as to why it's not moving forward would be another one. Right. I I feel like, I don't feel like we should say choose one of these two necessarily, but if we wanna provide the comment, let's say from the technical standpoint, this is where we feel it makes the most sense. And, and while I've been one who's been like expressing concern about not looking at the one way, I think hearing some of the background, having this conversation, seeing what the process is, I would be fully comfortable supporting the second of saying to the tech policy committee, we support you deciding and, and documenting why the one way is not moving forward any further and not incorporating it and moving the process forward.
I'd be fully comfortable making that, of supporting that even though I and my staff are some of those that have been like questioning the one way. Just because in my mind, like I said, I, I didn't know about all this additional work, prior work that had been done and kind of all the reasoning I hadn't seen necessarily, like all of those pieces I hadn't understood. I mean, the things you mentioned about the fire and why they needed that width and thinking about the passing, the additional explanations and hearing about this was a haul, I didn't even think about how this was a haul wrap. That changes the question of, okay, I, I have more confidence that I, the two lanes are gonna be helpful for continuing that same level of service. So some of those pieces, like for me, it's like, oh, okay. Those make a lot more sense. The traffic standpoint. I see. We need to tell the public it's important that they know we shouldn't proceed with a one way without going back to the public. 'cause that is going against the public's understanding. But I feel like the process and what some of our public members stated, I could be behind motion that.
You with withdrawn. I, I would like to formally withdraw my motion and try again. Thank you for your patience as I crumble my way through this. So, and the intent, my, the original motion and my comments were an attempt to address exactly what you had, just what you just said. So I will probably need help with this as well. But I would like to make a motion to the policy committee to that they recommend to the project team. That the project team include more information about the, the potential of runway alternative and what, what has been, gosh, see this is where I'm falling apart again. And the considerations for not including that as one of the alternatives, including some information about the previous project that this project went to, the previous project went to PBC and any additional supportive material that that is relevant to the one way. But Melinda, do you have some suggestions? Because that be,
If somebody seconds it, I could maybe offer something totally different or you can offer something totally different without a second. Okay. Offering something totally different. We have our design team here, we have leadership with DOT. One thing that they can do, like what they did here is they referenced all of the background planning and documents that they use to inform the project. That could be part of their work. I don't think it's a heavy lift to go back and reference the, the previous, you know, and it was a final it, it did, it was, you know, a final design study report. This is the draft that went as the application. We have the final, we have the resolution and you know, you've heard Emma p e's conversation that I'm relaying about a FD and street maintenance. If that was all pulled together as far as broad information on what was considered. 'cause at that point, for documentation sake, I think that is important. It was documented. Why are these constraints still there and why as a result it would be screened out. So could I offer, I don't think it would, what the
Can I try? I think I've got it guys. Okay. I move that the policy committee or I move to recommend that the policy committee direct staff to revise and clarify the environmental document to more thoroughly explain why a one way alternative was not include in the preferred analysis.
No, I appreciate all the discussion on this one and a lot of the background too on what was already looked at in the one way. And I think I, I like the, the motion that we have here of documented all the reasoning behind it. I think that's a good way of approaching this. Just resourcing, reevaluating something that I think if, if field maintenance or your maintenance folks are, aren't gonna be able to live with and fire marshal as as opposed to, I don't think it's gonna end up being the top alternative in the end of the day. So I defer to the project team. Do you guys have any concerns with the motion as, as drafted there and and including that background?
Ultimate can speak your name. Oh, David Gamez with Lounsbury. Thank you. I was gonna say, we can definitely document DSR is more appropriate than environmental documents. We haven't, that's different impacts. So sorry Alex read DOT we haven't assessed all the impacts of it, so I wouldn't put it in environmental document we have run through all but the d sr, we go through all of those concerns. Why early on before we looked out
Are, are you open to friendly amendment Taylor to provide you betcha member? Yes. Okay, let's make that friendly. So I, I do appreciate all of this conversation. I appreciate hearing the, the strong perspective from from maintenance. So thank you Ken and Bob for your comments to that regard. I think that that is really helpful to have, have that so clear. I feel like some of those things weren't as going to be till now. So, and I appreciate DOT being welcome or willing on the project team as well to just make all of these things much more clear than, than they had then. So I appreciate that. Are there other discussion or amendments?
So then the public can see it. So it's all, because it's kind of confusing sometimes for people after the fact to go back and find what was being talked about at the meeting. So we can make whatever you find. Okay. Available as part of the memo for the policy committee
That is not included in that. That is gathered to, you know, more recently I, I'm sure you know that was some of the thoughts that CRW had as far as project management. You look at all of those factors, but it wasn't succinctly defined as far as why that was flagged as far as the one way.
Can I work with you member to get the comments you provided today if the committee member's Okay. At bullet points to provide to the memo. So the com, the policy committee can go through kind of what the concerns were. So it's not staff trying to regurgitate it and not really understanding, getting it wrong. Is it possible to sit down and work with you on that?
Okay, sounds good. Other discussion or amendments from members? Okay, are there any opposed any, are there any objections to the motion approving the motion I should say? Okay, hearing none, the motion is approved. Thank you for all of that conversation. Now we will move on to next items of the agenda, which are the informational items. The first item six A, the HSIP Minnesota lighting update presentation. We're gonna try that. Start
Real quick on this and then move hand it over to DOT. So just as a reminder, this came up as part of discussion of the policy committee meeting, you know, providing some information on how things are going for HSIP projects and getting a little more information. So DOT has put together some information and talked about it today. There'll be more at the policy committee as well. So I'll turn it over to Ben DOT for
Thanks, Aaron. So as Aaron mentioned, this came up at, I believe it was February's policy meeting and it was in relation to discussion on fifth Avenue and the pedestrian fencing. They wanted to look at the results from the Minnesota project that took place, the HSIP project that took place. Construction was between 22 and 23. I think we started 22 and wrapped up in 23. We are pulling the data, so we're going back to 2013 to look at traffic data in that area. We're looking at everything from northbound on 27th down to 32nd. Let's take a look at this. And I think our traffic folks are pointing out to me that crashes are random. They don't happen in very repeatable areas. And so we're looking through the data. We're, we're trying to break out the data on what would have been sort of mitigatable crashes as a result of, of the, the barrier. And I think one of the things that we've also identified going through this is that the project as its whole, the scope of it was a lighting project and the fencing came in as kind of a secondary because of the lighting.
So I'm not sure where the data, where the, where the audio cut out, but essentially we're, we're working on pulling the data together. We're going from 2013, so this is nine years prior to construction. And typically on a project like this, we look for getting three years worth of data post construction, but we only have one year of verifiable data. We've got one year where the data has not been QA and qcd. So we're, we're gonna be showing data on this project and in this area crash data that we don't have the ideal three years worth of data post construction. And so we're, we're building, we're building our data sets. We're trying to put this together in a format that will be digestible for the policy committee, but also meet the needs of what they were trying to accomplish. So that's, that's kind of where we're at with this. So we're looking everywhere from 27th down to 32nd on Minnesota. And then we're also going back nine years prior to construction, the two years of construction, and then the year, year plus that we have after construction. And so that's kind of where we're headed with it.
Okay. Are there any questions or comments from the committee? And if you want Aaron, I do, I'm logged in too, so I could, we could play the mute on mute option. Okay. Because I'll have to start sharing from my screen. Yeah, last time it did that it froze. So I'm a little, a little worried about it. Is the, is the, sorry, did you guys keep going? We gotta, is the presentation for the next one on the SharePoint? Okay. Okay, now you need to mute. Okay, good.
Just a heads up. A lot of the slides will be presented by Julie Trudeau who's online. So if we have a problem hearing her or Julie as, as we present, just try to speak up a little bit because we're speaking through Aaron's laptop. Quick intro. My name is Ryan Harris, department of Transportation Highway design acting project manager on the Seward Highway M Design and Project. Thank you a MS technical advisory committee for having us here to give a brief presentation on the work that we have done up to this point and the work that we are planning to do moving forward to slowly get this project moving. Again, quick introductions with well myself and we have Morgan McCammon, Dallas Pi lead here with us today. Online we have Julie Trudeau, who is Jacob's project manager and I believe we also have Andrew oms, our lead traffic engineer from Dell.
I do wanna preface, I know we only have 10 minutes, I wanna preface our presentation a little bit with a few comments. But main focus of this presentation is also to adjust some of the comments that we received in the 2050 MTP amendment two. And so just a few preliminary comments prior to Julie taking over and getting into the presentation. First one being, so the project was reset, the purpose of need is being built by stakeholders via an advisory committee that we have put together that we'll get into here in a second. We are in early scoping currently we're not in design, no design decisions have been made. We're only looking at very preliminary figures, very preliminary, I don't even wanna call 'em alternatives, but different suggestions and ideas that are coming forth through the advisory stakeholder working group. And third, this is not a highway widening project. That's not the project's current identity, that's not the intent of the project moving forward. And that's sort of becoming more clear as we go through our stakeholder working group and advisory committee meetings. So with that said, Julie, if you're online and you can hear us, feel free to take over and we can go to slide two and we'll get through our presentation and answer any questions that anyone has at the end.
Am I speaking loud enough? Great. Okay, thanks. So about a year ago we decided with DOT, that was time for a fresh start for this project. And we, in May, we sent out an inquiry to community representation asking for primary and secondary advisory committee members. You know, quite a few organizations have been participating along the way with us at the first meeting. We wanted to identify that we're separating ourselves from the previous design and that we needed to take a look at. Well we also, you know, needs and priorities change over time. And so in, in this project, having been around for a long time, we identified to our stakeholders that, you know, the needs before may not necessarily align with the needs today. And so through this process, we've allowed our stakeholders to identify key issues that are important today within the project limits, develop solutions, prioritize those and screen those against the need statements.
And we did ask for some confidentiality in ensuring trust amongst our stakeholders, participating and allowing them to talk freely and share their thoughts and ideas without external criticism. So with that, I think we'll flip to the next slide to share where we've been and where we're headed. So in September our stakeholder advisory committee met and we went through a brief project history and then started identifying needs or issues within the the corridor. Those issues then were brought to our December meeting, our first December meeting as emerging themes. And those themes led our stakeholders to developing needs statements and a purpose for the project.
In our second meeting in December, we also started noodling concepts that would solve those identified emerging themes. And in February we refined those concepts. So we, we took those ideas that were sharpies on aerial photos and we brought those back and refined concepts with our stakeholders. At the end of the third meeting, we decided to take more time with our stakeholders and allow some post voting. And so we just received, about a week ago, we received all of our voting cards back from our stakeholders and you'll, you'll see the results of those later on in our presentation. We still are planning on attending the Anchorage Transportation Fair and upcoming public open house in May and then beginning a context sensitive solution process. So with that, I think we'll flip to the next slide.
Our stakeholders also asked for quite a bit of information to support decision making. These are all data sets that are located on the Seward Highway public website under a stakeholder advisory committee page. So this information, whether it's bridge conditions, crash data, origin destination information that was customized to fit the needs and requests of our stakeholders. Traffic volumes and traffic volume trends and speed data. So this is all publicly available information that is in support of the process that we're going through with our stakeholders. Next slide. Ultimately this is current purpose and need. Sorry, need statements. Need one is pedestrian and bicycle safety concerns need to insufficient non-motorized connectivity both North South Andes West in the project limit need. Three is the use of Brayton its operations versus its desired use and need. Four is operational and non for non-motorized and motorized users and and accommodation gaps or gaps at our interchanges rather. And then we'll flip to the next slide. So there are over 20
Yep, thanks. Okay, so 20 concepts were developed by our stakeholders. You can see 'em here on the screen. Five for Brayton. Next slide. Six for scooter. Next slide. Eight different concepts at O'Malley. Next slide. And for project wide minor improvement in and around diamond and O'Malley. Next slide. So here's the results of the voting from our stakeholders. As you can see, our stakeholders put a lot of prioritization into a shared use pathway, separated shared use pathway with two-way traffic on Braden, some left turn movement improvements at O'Malley and then some interchange, some minor interchange improvements at Dimond and O'Malley. So if we can flip to the next three slides, we'll show a two-way concept that our stakeholders developed with a shared use pathway along Brayton. The next slide is the left turn movement improvements at O'Malley interchange. And the next slide, some pedestrian refuge improvements at both Dimond and O'Malley. Next slide. The last thing that we did ask our stakeholders to do is to consider if they were to vote a according to fiscal responsibility. And then is there anything else that the stakeholders would like us to consider if funding was not a constraint within the project limit. And you can see the second blue highlighted section here is an under crossing at Scooter Avenue. And so that was an option that I can't afford with the current funding, but was also prioritized by our stakeholders. Next slide.
So just a question on next steps here, Ryan, where's, where's the project team going with the stakeholder engagement? You know, I think a lot of the concepts of what we have here, I guess continuation of the stakeholder working group meeting and then public involvement beyond that.
Alright, well the next big thing on our, on our calendar is the transportation fair obviously. So last week or two weeks ago we received, received those survey results with the stakeholder stakeholders voting, I believe that, correct me if I'm wrong, Morgan, we've responded to the stakeholders and share the survey results. And so the next immediate steps is to sort of work through that process, potentially engage the stakeholder working group. I don't think we have anything currently planned to get the entire advisory committee together. Again, Julie, correct me if I'm wrong there, but immediate next steps is to, we have an, after the transportation fair, we have an open house, the Diamond center may to present some of the ideas that that came out of these stakeholder working groups. So that's our, our big next PI effort. Is that dimond center meeting.
Yeah, maybe a couple of minor clarifications there. So yes, we wanna take these ideas to the Anchorage Transportation Fair. Our stakeholders encouraged us to do that because we will reach more individuals within the community will be able to seek more input and further refine these prioritized concepts. From there, we'll do a bit of refinement and take that to a public open house. But it's also important to note that we committed to our stakeholders to hold some design threats. Those are intended to get a little more in the technical weeds with some of our stakeholders that are very excited about, you know, the, the width of the shared use pathway for example, or how we address pedestrian crossings that are interchanges. And so getting into more design aspects as opposed to staying up at this concept level with our stakeholders is also very important to us.
Thank you. Alexa Dobson Bike Anchorage. I would just like to add a little bit of context. As a former member of this advisory group, you'll notice that one of those slides, I think said cyclists Advisory group and not bike anchorage. And that is because Bike Anchorage was a stakeholder in this group and we withdrew because it became clear that the project was being manipulated to force a highway widening under the guise of a safety project. And our input was not being taken seriously or respected at the time that Bike Ridge was part of this advisory group over at least six months. No crash data, traffic volumes, traffic trends or other core data was provided to the stakeholder group. We all had to ask individually for data that we wanted to see and it was not provided at the time that bike Anchorage chose to withdraw.
I hope that it has been provided since. But the big thing that I want to bring the tax attention to is this claim that the project is not about highway widening. They're not trying to widen the highway. That is not true. The project team advanced the idea that there was a safety need with no data presented to support this for an extra lane to be added to the Seward Highway northbound between O'Malley and Diamond. They claim that this is not a highway widening because it is called an auxiliary lane. But when you add a lane to the highway, it is indeed called a highway widening. So that's something that we really do need to be aware of. You saw the auxiliary lane idea under the concept list there. Another issue that we had was with our objections being, I think the best way to describe it, as ignored as in given no response or consideration whatsoever having to do with the concept for the Seward southbound exit at Dimond involving a slip lane.
So designed, well known to be unsafe for both bicyclists and pedestrians. And we were not the only people in the room to make objections to this. Those were ignored. So I do want to reiterate the concerns that I made at the time to the project team, to leadership. That there are serious issues with the ways that this project is being advanced. And I would encourage Thet to be extremely suspicious of the proposal before you today. The reason why, you know, we wrote in our letter having to do with the MTP moving forward, we wanted to get this al out on the record and make sure that there was adequate oversight so that this project, which has the potential to improve safety and mobility for a pedestrian, the bicyclists in the area does not simply become another opportunity to increase motor normativity and move more cars at high speeds at the expense of bicyclists and pedestrians. So please keep that in mind as you're evaluating this moving forward. Thank you.
Thank you. Alexa, are there any other public comments? Thanks for presenting. I, I guess I do want to say that I was part of the committee and that the last meeting where some of the similar things Alexa raised, I raised, but I felt like they were addressed in a very positive way. So on not a different opinion of the value and process and the project team, if I do wanna say thank you for, for bringing this to us. So thank you. Thank you. The next item, a letter from FHWA item six C and letter from Alaska DOT on the MPO author.
Yes. Hello, this is me. This is just a real brief one. So I was asked by a policy committee member to add these items to the agenda just for your information and I do wanna make a clarification. There's an error on the agenda that is my fault. I put it as a letter from Alaska, DOT and PF. It is not a letter from Alaska, DOT and PF, it is a letter from the department of law. So I wanna make that very clear. I apologize for that error that was not intended on my part. I was very rushed 'cause a lot of things came in at the very last minute to be added to this agenda. So I have the letter, let me show it to you all so you can see that it says department of law on there. I was just noticing that and I feel real sheepish so I apologize for anybody that caused some concerns on your part. Again, these are just here for you guys to have them as information and I'm happy to help take any questions that we can pass to the policy committee or pass along to the department of law or FHWA through the policy committee. So if you have any, please let me know. Thank you.
Not that I'm aware of. I don't really know what the next steps are in this. We're just kind of waiting for this to go through. So depends, I guess maybe a response from FHWA to this recent letter would be the next step outside that I know there's probably gonna be some discussions on the agenda later in one of the items that'll be talked about. Is this on this item? So,
Thanks Brad. I just wanted to, to add Aaron's absolutely correct, the next thing we would expect in this process is for Federal highways to respond to law with whatever that interpretation may be that, that they're seeking. So it's really just a conversation between Department of law and Federal, federal Highways to make sure that we're all reading the CFRs the same as we, you know, apply these, these, you know, CFRs that are open to interpretation to some degree on, you know, tip approval decisions. I think that that's the main one. Still trying to understand exactly how regionally significant projects reviewed that sort of stuff. So Aaron's just spot on. We're just waiting to hear back from Federal Highways on, on this letter from law.
It was a separate item that was also asked to be put on the agenda. The idea behind that is to have a discussion about kind of the roadmap for the next, you know, rest of the year basically for Ammas regarding specific topics. So that item, you know, I'll, I'll just say that, you know, six E is kind of really more for the policy committee to have a discussion on. 'cause a lot of the items are that level, but it's on the agenda since everything that goes to the policy committee, we make sure it goes to the TAC. So it's just there. If you guys have any questions, comments, or concerns that you wanna pass along to the policy committee,
Okay, perfect, perfect, perfect. Yeah, we'll go ahead and pull this screen up. So the MPO boundary, we've, we've been working on this with our GIS folks as well as department of law, just kind of working through the proposed and existing MPA boundaries. We've got this nifty GIS site that kind of shows several things AM S'S boundary was a little bit unique compared to the other two. MPOs, both MVP and Fast pretty strictly followed the US census line, which is the, the federally required minimum approved boundary line. And so reviewing theirs was maybe a little more straightforward. AMAs boundary is, has has a lot of components to it. And so one of the maps that you guys had, the first one is this map one, and of course my screen's gonna not cooperate.
And, and I think even the one you guys have, the, the critical thing here is, so the, the gray area is the urbanized area that is the minimally required federal boundary for the metropolitan planning area. So, so that area must be incorporated. AMEX has historically also included Eagle River and to Biatch area, to BAC area. This is actually small urban area. It's not, it's not federally required to be included. And then Ammas has extended all the way up to about mile 30 of the parks highway. So quite a bit larger boundary than the federally required minimum. Nothing necessarily wrong with that. The, the CFR does say, at a minimum you must include the gray.
And then going back, you know, to the, to the last, my understanding is 2002 was the last boundary DOT was able to find a governor and MPO approval on, as you can see, really fundamentally not that different from your 2024 boundary in terms of the extends beyond the urbanized area. And of course back at that time you did have some non-attainment that have since been resolved. So those, that's today is just informational. So I just, we're just trying to show you guys all the things that we've been looking at here at the department as we work through these updated boundary agreements. Now the other thing that law brought forward were some concerns about the expansions into the Atch State Park. And those are the map three boundaries that you would have gotten. So if we look at, you know, the Seward Highway, the proposed boundary was including Potter's Marsh, several chunks of the Chuge State Park.
Similar situation in Eagle River where the, the black is proposed. The blue would be the boundary expansion without, or the, the current boundary depending on where the line is without the new intrusions into the Atch State Park. And then same for the coastal refuge. So these were areas that law had serious concerns about the inclusions for a variety of reasons. Coordination, the lack of ability for these areas to become urbanized. And so law has essentially, their position is that the state cannot approve the boundary expansions into these essentially undevelopable areas as proposed. And so those are kind of the three for three, three map things that we've been looking at. And then of course the AMAs 2002 boundary. We don't have any gi IS files. I'm not sure Aaron, if you've got something in your file somewhere. So that's not included in that GIS link that was provided.
But we do have the blue, which is the, the urbanized area that this is the minimum that must be included in the boundary. The, the pink is the small urban area, which is not required to be federally included. And then the red is amma's opposed boundary. So purely informational at this this point. So just wanted to raise, raise kind of what we've been looking at, what law has weighed in on and, and ultimately, you know, just kind of trying to understand another thing that we, we haven't had a as easy a time understanding is sort of what's driven some of these expansions. You know, certainly in, in the broader context of, of regional transportation. You know, one thing the law does allow for is inclusion of the full metropolitan statistical area and one M p's boundary. So that would actually be the municipality of Anchorage plus the Matsu borough. So essentially a consolidation of of Ammas and MVP. So just trying to understand, you know, what's driving the, the larger boundary, understanding those things and just putting, putting this information in your hands of, of the data that we've looked at, the feedback we've gotten from law and some of the options within the CFR that, that are allowable. And so that's really all I've got on six DI did see a question here in the chat.
So the reason that we, we stuck to the, the park layers that we did was we weren't able to find an official designation for some of those municipality park areas. So it wasn't clear if those could theoretically someday, you know, change designation and be developed. So if there's additional information we need there, please feel free to send it to me and, and we're happy. This is,
So like state park is, is in law as a state park so you know, the barriers to it somehow having protections removed and being developed are pretty high. When I talked to the GIS folks that put this map together, they said they weren't able to find something similar for, i it's, it's somewhere in here I feel like, yeah this, this green layer here find the same type of designation that made it crystal clear, you know, this is a protected zone and, and so that was why we lieutenant left that Got it. Cool. Legally approved line along, along the, the old Stewart Highway, the legally acceptable, I should say.
We, we, so for development we, we would non-motorized facilities would likely be able to be developed on any MOA land that is managed by parks and recreation. We do and are trying to further clarify our dedicated parkland, which might be something that you're, we're referring to, which is protected in code. So that is something if you wanted to connect on, we have something that is not complete but what is has been uploaded are parcels that we do are pretty confident are dedicated. So, okay. If you want a better layer I can help you with that. If it's not important at this time, that's okay too. So that for your answer, I appreciate it. Yeah,
Yes. So this information comes to us from the census and then we work with, with the census and federal highways to kind of smooth and, and clean up the line to better fit, you know, actual physical boundaries like roads and, and those sorts of things. And then this is ultimately approved as the urbanized boundary. So this, this is a, a, a boundary that came from census was coordinated with the department. I'm not sure the full process that we've gone through that, that would be our DMIO group that has those coordination efforts on the GIS and then ultimately was approved by Federal highways as the boundary.
Well blue is urbanized area, pink is a small urban area, so that's under 50,000, I can't remember what the low end, I can't remember if it's 10 or 25,000 to, to 49, 999 population. Essentially once you hit a population of 50,000 that triggers a requirement for IT formation of an MPO. And so that's what happens in that too on this last census was they, they crossed that 50,000 threshold to, to require becoming an MCO, other small urban areas in the state. There's one down on the Kenai Peninsula, Juno is a small urban area. So, and there is the service transportation block grant funding as well as I believe carbon reduction program funding does have sub allocations for those population groups specifically that come to the department.
Are there other requested comments from the committee as I, I have a few. One, I, I appreciate being able to see the map and talk about specifics. Having their documentation about why and what different words mean will be really helpful when this comes to us to, to make technical suggestions, recommendations such as the like minimally required areas and also talking to the legally acceptable, are there specific CFRs or other things that prohibit extending into the, the parks or other other things. So understanding the, the legal opinion there and where that comes from would be really helpful because if we're already in some of those areas, it would be critical to understand how we aren't under a legally acceptable situation, especially what we have has been previously approved by governor and maybe not the most recent adjustments that that were approved by, but the prior one even.
So just having like clear documentation understanding of, of common language and common understanding of being able to see that HWA language and, and also I would be very interested to HWA a's opinion that the state of proof from prior boundaries, why would they have approved it if it really was not legally acceptable. So some of those questions I would, I would be really interested in for any future conversation if it's an action item. Also as we comment on the full statistical area that check be considered, can partial statistical area be considered? Does it have to be the whole thing or nothing?
I guess some of those, those are other questions I get answer right now. But that, I guess in my mind, I guess one other comment is as we looked at the traffic in this area and the purpose of the MPO to have collaborative and coordinated transportation needs, a lot of what comes in and out of Anchorage really uses some of these areas that are, and so I, I could see the, the value of being able to consider them and and contribute to them. There also are the questions of what's the difference if something's outside of the MPO versus inside the MPO, does that increase or decrease funding? Does that allow for improve collaboration or or less collaboration? Does it, like how, how does that function? So that would I guess be another point of discussion for this, but don't understand that quite as much as someone who's here with the municipality I, part of me is like why doesn't just the entire municipality, because I'm part of the MPO so that we're not in this confusing MPO separate from municipality sort of conversation. So that question I guess has been really fascinated to hear why different parts, like what reasoning to not that. So anyway, those are one of my thoughts on future conversation.
Yeah and I think those are all really good points. One thing to remember the boundaries between the state and the MPO. And so federal highways doesn't really have a role in approval of that outside of, if for some reason a boundary was approved that did not include all of the blue, then that would not be a legally compliant boundary. That that would be the only, the only place that Federal Highways would maybe have some, some authority or or comment on. The rest of this is really between the state and and aaps to, to work out what what is an acceptable boundary. The CFR as I said, it, it defines a minimum boundary. It doesn't necessarily define a maximum boundary but it does have some language that kind of gear indicates that there's some intent here towards, you know, pure metropolitan planning. I will say, you know, in fast a lot of the discussion on the boundary that they chose being very strictly along that their version of the blue was that they only get so much money and so the bigger they make their boundary, the more they're diluting that that funding as opposed to if it's outside the boundary, those needs come to the state and they potentially compete for a much larger pool of money.
So, so those were some of the discussions that were happening in FAST MVPI think we, the state really, you know, there are new MPO and so again, not trying to go too big right out of the gate but, but yeah those are, those are all good points and, and good things for, for this group to, to kind of understand and work through for any new boundary proposals to policy and ultimately the state and I did drop in the chat the CFR that does define the minimum boundary requirements for folks that are interested and obviously we've got this GIS that people can kind of toggle on and off and and play around with on that. So if you guys want, I can jump really briefly into six EI don't think there's a ton there but I also don't wanna ty you this discussion either if there's still some more questions,
I have something really quickly just is to clarify. So the minimum MPA boundary shall encompass the entire existing urbanized area plus the contiguous area expected to be urbanized within the 20 year forecast period for the metropolitan transportation plan. So it's not just the blue that you see on the screen in front of you. Just keep that in mind.
Yeah. And Aaron, that was a question we had. It sounds like the MTP is is the responsible document for doing those forecasting and I wasn't sure if any of the MPOs had actually gone through the effort of determining what an additional 20 year forecast might generate in terms of additional urbanized area. You know when you look at Eagle River, it really hasn't changed since at least 2002 in terms of, of approaching an urbanized area threshold. So that was, that was a question that we did have to the NPOs of how you guys do that analysis for the forecasted to be in 20 years.
Yeah, I mean I'll have to look back and see what they did previously for us we, there wasn't really much to change this go around so we didn't have to do a whole lot. It was a lot of cleanup, some missing gaps that we wanted to connect some roads that were half in, half out. So we're like put 'em all in. They don't have to be, but that was our recommendation. So we provided all that backup already to everybody on why we made the decisions for staff that came before the TACM policy committee.
Past minimal. I don't know if I have the, I have that information and I don't know if I haven't, there's not a whole lot on past efforts so I don't have much to provide you at this point on why chunks in the white were included other than they thought at that point it was gonna be urbanized in the next 20 years.
Bring the conversation. Other question, comments? Okay, are there any comments from the public? Okay, I don't see any comments from the public. Thank you Lauren for addressing item six C. We do have six minutes still that we could jump into item six E, do you have suggestions Erin? Was that
Yeah, this came up from the policy committee chair. She wanted to make sure that we had a good robust discussion on things that are up and coming. You know, some concerns regarding the boundary, which you heard here. There are also some concerns regarding the operating agreement. Sounds like some discussion needs to happen there. So at some point there may need to be an informational item on a future agenda and then concerns about the tip stip alignment. So some discussions there, how do we make sure that that alignment still works properly. And then just discussions over NHS projects and their inclusion in the documents. For the MTP tip, I think a lot of this also speaks to the MPO authority, so some of it may still need to wait until that is resolved, especially for the NHS projects. So I guess at this point, if you guys have any recommendations on when these should come to the agenda or be put on the agenda as an informational item, maybe you can provide that to the policy committee. Be like, okay, next month we want to hear more about the operating agreement next month we wanna hear more about NHS. It's kinda up to you guys
Yeah, sorry we're on the other side of the room and the laptop is over by errand, so it feels like yelling. But I think given that we're already pushing up against our three 15 and over a typical time, rather than diving into these, I guess my question would be are there any of these that are more urgent than others to be talking about it at, at a next meeting rather than, because there's a lot here. Is there suggestion or insight or timing that, that you want to talk to us about at the technical committee or of those things that will be better to decide the policy?
Absolutely. I think just a few high level points to convey, we need to have an approved boundary that by December 31st, 2026, so the technical can start kind of, or or and in that staff sort of building out a schedule of how we get from where we are today to final approved boundary. You know, there's gonna have to be some, some consultation, potentially a tribal consultation. I'm not entirely sure all the steps, but just wanna make sure that, that we kind of have that mapped out and for that boundary approval. And then strategies for addressing that the current policy committee make as, as documented and approved in the operating agreement is not in compliance with Alaska statute. So Alaska statute 19 point 20.2 10 does dictate the, to some extent the makeup of policy committee. It requires seven voting members. I'm going off my memory at the moment, but, but it, it has some requirements that are not currently met in the operating agreement and so we need to make sure we resolve that as well before that December 31st date. So we're, we're all on the same page moving forward into the new year.
Yep. Should be really quick. So the next meeting we have complete street streets apology, possible public release. We'll have to see where we're at with the project then. And then we have a couple of informational items, academy Vanguard Drive presentation possibly, and then the Tudor Road interchange project presentation. There may be one other item I'm forgetting that I got an email on that I haven't responded to and I apologize for that. And then depending on what the policy committee decides, based on the six E item that we just discussed. So there may be more, I just don't know at this point. So looks like we may have a few less items on the next agenda. We'll see how it goes. So thank you.
This is hidden text that lets us know when google translate runs.