Crossroads Ahead Crossroads Ahead W hy a State Funded W hy a State - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Crossroads Ahead Crossroads Ahead

W hy a State Funded W hy a State Funded Transportation Program is Transportation Program is p g p g Right for Alaska Right for Alaska

What We Will Address What We Will Address What We Will Address What We Will Address

• State of Alaska’s transportation system
• State of Alaska s transportation system

– Declining conditions – Limitations to meeting needs – What other states are doing; why these approaches are a poor fit for Alaska

• The Alaska Transportation Fund

– Advantages of non-federal funds – Core concepts for using the fund – Core concepts for using the fund – Immediate and future priorities – How projects would be selected

2

2

State of Alaska’s Transportation State of Alaska’s Transportation Infrastructure Infrastructure -

• 2008

2008

• Safety: high-accident roads await funds,

seasonal airport surfaces not ideal seasonal airport surfaces not ideal

• Congestion: traffic growing faster than

new capacity constructed new capacity constructed

• Deteriorating conditions: pavement,

rutting, ferry machinery breakdowns, g, y y , harbor facilities aging

• Preventative maintenance: adequate

q funds to avoid costly repairs not available

3

Poor Pavement Conditions Poor Pavement Conditions

Kenai Peninsula: Robinson Loop Road North Star Borough : Goldst eam Road Goldstream Road Kenai Peninsula: Sterling Highway

4

Bridge Deficiencies Bridge Deficiencies g

Alaska Highway Bridge after

• ver-height strike – reduced

to single lane traffic

• Start typing here.

Start typing here.

to single lane traffic Glenn Hwy: Eagle River Bridge Rail damaged 86 or just over 10% of bridges need seismic retrofits

5

Climate Change Problems Climate Change Problems Climate Change Problems Climate Change Problems

Settlement due to thawing

• n Glenn Highway (top and

b tt ) bottom). Copper River is now threatening the CR Highway.

6

AMHS Vessel Issues AMHS Vessel Issues

Outdated Rusted steel Outdated technology

7

Corroded power cables

7

Harbor Repair Examples Harbor Repair Examples p p p p

Timber Float damage at damage at Funter Bay Bent piles at K di k Kodiak

8

Corroded pile At Ketchikan

8

Airport Needs Unmet Airport Needs Unmet Airport Needs Unmet Airport Needs Unmet

Nanwalek Airport, nearby hazards, poor drainage Birchwood Airport, pavement Savoonga

9

cracking

9

Savoonga Airport, runway rutting

Example of Example of Example of Example of Funding Constraints Funding Constraints

Location Location Cost to Build Cost to Build Years of Federal Years of Federal NHS Funds* NHS Funds*

Anchorage, Hwy to Hwy Anchorage, Hwy to Hwy

$750 M $750 M 10 10

Fairbanks, 3 Major Hwys. Fairbanks, 3 Major Hwys.

$700 M $700 M 9.3 9.3

Parks, Wasilla Parks, Wasilla - Big Lk. Big Lk.

$150 M $150 M 2 2

Parks, Wasilla Parks, Wasilla Big Lk. Big Lk.

$150 M $150 M 2 2

Anchorage to Girdwood Anchorage to Girdwood

$340 M $340 M 4.5 4.5

Soldotna to Sterling Soldotna to Sterling

$60 M $60 M 0.8 0.8

AMHS: New Mainliner AMHS: New Mainliner

$250 M $250 M 3.3 3.3

Totals Totals $2.3 Billion

$2.3 Billion ~ 30 Years ~ 30 Years

These three routes are also priority safety corridors.

* If all other NHS projects delayed.

10

C t ib ti W k C t ib ti W k Contributing Weaknesses Contributing Weaknesses

• Federal funds effectiveness has declined
• Federal funds effectiveness has declined

because:

– Earmarks and new set-asides have reduce funds to basic needs funds to basic needs – Inflation is high, reducing what the funds accomplish F d l l d l k di – Federal laws and rules keep expanding – Limited state M&O funds has changed our use of federal funds h f d d d – Highway trust fund revenue not adjusted since 1993

11

Federal Funds Decline Federal Funds Decline Federal Funds Decline Federal Funds Decline

$350 000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000

Formula Funds

$150,000 $200,000

Formula Funds Recission

$ $50,000 $100,000

Trust Fund Shortfall Linear (Formula Funds)

$(100,000) $(50,000) $-

Funds)

2008 2009 2010

12 12

12

Federal Years

Inflation is an Issue Inflation is an Issue Inflation is an Issue Inflation is an Issue

Al k t

180 200

2000

Alaska costs up nearly 2x US average

140 160 180 AK Earthwork AK P t

rom Year 2

100 120 AK Pavement US Hwy Const.

Percent fr

World average crude oil price

80 2000 2002 2004 2006

crude oil price

13

Costs indexed to 100 in Year 2000.

Growth of Federal Laws Growth of Federal Laws Growth of Federal Laws Growth of Federal Laws

60 70

STURAA CZARA CAA ISTEA SNRTA EO12898 EO13007 SDWA EO13061 EO13089 TEA-21 EO13112 EO13148 EO13186

AMENDMENTS

SAFETEA-LU

40 50

SDWA MSFCMA RCRA CWA EO11990 EO11998 ARPA CERCLA ANILCA LAA FPPA CBRA HSWA SDWA EWRA CWA URA STURAA STURAA NAGPRA ADA ISTEA CAA

OF LAWS AND A

20 30

AHPA CAA HBA NHPA 4(f) FAHA FAHA FAHA CAA WSRA EAA NEPA RRA URA WBA CWA CZMA ESA SDWA FNWA RCRA

LATIVE NUMBER

10 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

RHAA AA MBTA FWCA HSBAA FIFRA CAA LWCF WA CRA SWDA

CUMUL YEAR

Per FHWA Presentation, 2003

14

M&O $ Shortfall Since 1983 M&O $ Shortfall Since 1983 M&O $ Shortfall Since 1983 M&O $ Shortfall Since 1983

140000 160000 180000 FY83 Budget Adjusted for 80000 100000 120000 FY83 Budget Adjusted for Anchorage CPI 40000 60000 80000 M&O Actual GF Operating Budget 20000 FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 REV. FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08

15 15

15

FY

This gap has been filled by shifting some federal funds to major maintenance activities that were once state funded.

Scope of Alaska’s Needs Scope of Alaska’s Needs Scope of Alaska s Needs Scope of Alaska s Needs

– Lane miles per 1000 population Lane miles per 1000 population

• US average: 28 lane miles
• Alaska: 44 lane miles

– Only 24x7, ocean certified, ferry system, longest route system – Largest state aviation system – Longest coastline, high need for g , g ports and harbors – Unmet needs vastly greater in Alaska

16 16

due to late start in infrastructure

16

Biggest Return Biggest Return f F d l Hi h F d f F d l Hi h F d

• f Federal Highway Funds
• f Federal Highway Funds

Alaska

$1 00 : $6 44 $1.00 : $6.44 Concern: will this beneficial ratio continue in next authorization bill? authorization bill?

17 17

17

Most States Have Diversified Most States Have Diversified Most States Have Diversified Most States Have Diversified

State/ Local $$ Federal $$

70 70-

• 80%

80% 20 20-

• 30%

30%

$$

80% 80%

18 18

18

Other States Other States Other States Other States

• Adopting user fee approaches:
• Adopting user fee approaches:

– Tolls Lease roads and bridges to private – Lease roads and bridges to private concessions (PPP) – County level bonds for state roads – County level bonds for state roads – Tax on miles driven

• These have little merit to meet the
• These have little merit to meet the

majority of Alaska’s needs

19

State Fund Advantages State Fund Advantages State Fund Advantages State Fund Advantages

• Projects completed faster

Avoided federal oversight parallel actions – Avoided federal oversight, parallel actions

• Less costly to construct

– Reduced time avoids cost escalation

• Complex federal laws avoided

– NEPA, 4(f), Buy America, do not always apply

• Significant public benefits achieved sooner
• Significant public benefits achieved sooner

– Public safety improved – Delay time and fuel costs reduced y – Economic development facilitated – Asset life extended

20

State Funds Advantages State Funds Advantages State Funds Advantages State Funds Advantages

Y e a r s

Federal $ Timeline – 7+ years typical Environmental Design ROW Federal $ Timeline 7+ years typical ROW Construction Environmental State $ Timeline 4-5 years typical Environmental Design ROW C t ti State funded, 2-3 years faster on average. Construction

21

State Funded Successes State Funded Successes State Funded Successes State Funded Successes

Dalton Highway: 3 years Dalton Highway: 3 years saved Anchorage, Elmore Road: 2 years saved M C th R d 3

22 22

22

McCarthy Road: 3 years saved

Erratic State Appropriations Erratic State Appropriations pp p pp p to Transportation to Transportation

Non-Federal Funds* to Transportation

400,000,000 250,000,000 300,000,000 350,000,000 100 000 000 150,000,000 200,000,000 50,000,000 100,000,000 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08

23 23

23 * Excludes state funds appropriated to match federal funds.

Federal Fund Limitations Federal Fund Limitations Federal Fund Limitations Federal Fund Limitations

• The Highway and Transit Program can

not meet the needs & expectations of Alaska citizens d l l l d

• Federal Aviation Program, is also limited
• Other transportation needs such as

t d h b h ti ports and harbors have no continuous funding program

24

Alaska Transportation Fund Alaska Transportation Fund Alaska Transportation Fund Alaska Transportation Fund

• Core concepts:

Core concepts:

– Available to all modes – Local and state projects eligible Local and state projects eligible – Funds used in “program” approach – AS 44 42 050 (transportation – AS 44.42.050 (transportation planning) guides project selection process p

• Data driven needs assessment
• Public process, with scoring

25 25

25

• Nationally recognized and respected

approach continued

Why this Approach? Why this Approach?

• Episodic funding difficult for both private
• Episodic funding difficult for both private

and public sectors

– 1987 downturn led to layoffs business closures – 1987 downturn led to layoffs, business closures – ATF will be there when most needed!

• Sustaining a “system” needs a sustainable

Sustaining a system needs a sustainable revenue source

– Predicted growth in fund provides inflation g p proofing

• User fees impractical and improbable

26 26

26

– Raising $50 million would require raising fuel tax from 8¢ to 20¢ (a 150% increase)

AS 44 42 050 AS 44 42 050 AS 44.42.050 AS 44.42.050

• DOT&PF commissioner to develop a comprehensive, intermodal,

long range transportation plan: long-range transportation plan:

– may be in multiple documents and subjects – revised as the commissioner determines appropriate. – conforms to the requirements for the eligibility and use of federal and h f d

• ther funds

– transmit notice of the approval of that component to the governor and to the legislature

• seek public review and evaluation by any reasonable means and may

– consult and cooperate with officials and representatives of government agencies and authorities, interested corporations and other organizations – request data and assistance from other units of government

• develop a list of projects scheduled for design, construction for a

p

p j

g , period of not less than two years that is consistent with the plan

– list must include an estimate of federal, state, and other funds and a description, location, and itemization of the estimated cost for each project

• cost-effectiveness analysis required except for

27 27

cost effectiveness analysis required except for

– rehabilitation and maintenance of an existing transportation system – projects that serve local transportation needs

27

What a “Program” Means What a “Program” Means What a Program Means What a Program Means

• Funding applied as needed

g pp

• Priorities set, each project

proceeds as quickly as possible p q y p

– adjustments made in response to each project’s progress – earliest projects hold priority

• US Interstate: Fantastic

achievement due to a “program” h

28 28

approach

28

Costs of “Project” Approach Costs of “Project” Approach Costs of Project Approach Costs of Project Approach

I fl ti d L t Ti Inflation and Lost Time

$5,000,000 $6,000,000

One year lost and ~ $2 Million inflation costs

$2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $ , , s Funds Remaining

inflation costs incurred

$(2,000,000) $(1,000,000) $- $1,000,000 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Dollars Funds Expended Lost to Inflation Additional Funds Needed $(5,000,000) $(4,000,000) $(3,000,000) $( , , ) Y

29 29

29

Years

Initial Priorities Initial Priorities - 2 Years 2 Years Initial Priorities Initial Priorities 2 Years 2 Years

• Initial priorities for ATF funds:

– Address priority public safety needs

bl

• Intersections, rumble strips, signage

– Ready-to-construct projects

• Shows immediate progress

Shows immediate progress

• Uses prior investment to good purpose

– Preservation, reducing deferred i t b kl maintenance backlog – Support to significant economic needs, congestion issues

30 30

congestion issues

30

Why Safety? Why Safety? Why Safety? Why Safety?

• Safety’s importance:

Safety s importance:

– 75-85 lives lost each year in state – 500-600 major injuries 500 600 major injuries – $500 Million per year in societal costs

• State goal is to reduce these
• State goal is to reduce these

tragedies by 1/3 over ten years O l t i iti ti d

• Only strong new initiatives and

investments will make this possible

31

Why Preservation? Why Preservation?

E t d f l lif f t

• Extends useful life of assets

– $1 can save $4 if timely

• Wealth of data to guide allocations

– Management systems: pavement, maintenance, bridge

• Often an unfunded gap between

g p federal funds and state M&O budgets

– Airport needs

32 32

32

p – Bridge guard rail

Why Why Congestion Relief? Congestion Relief? Why Why Congestion Relief? Congestion Relief?

• Why congestion needs attention:

Why congestion needs attention:

– Growing problem in several areas – Adds costs to business and users Adds costs to business and users – Often a factor in accidents

• Lane miles growing more slowly than
• Lane miles growing more slowly than

number of vehicles on highways

El R d ti t d t $9 5 M – Elmore Road estimated to save $9.5 M per year in congestion and reduced travel

33 33

33

travel – Only 4 years to recover state investment

Why Economic Development? Why Economic Development?

• Transportation often essential element to
• Transportation often essential element to

economic investment.

– Red Dog TSAIA freight success both benefited – Red Dog, TSAIA freight success both benefited from state investment in transportation.

• Alaska Constitution: Article 8, Sec. 5: “The

,

legislature may provide for facilities, improvements, and services to assure greater utilization, development, reclamation, and settlement of lands… .”

– Much of Alaska lacks sufficient economic investment to be truly sustainable. I t t l d t d j b hi h h l

34 34

34

– Investment leads to good jobs which helps communities and citizens.

After First 2 Years After First 2 Years After First 2 Years After First 2 Years

• Rely on statewide assessments of

Rely on statewide assessments of modal needs to help divide the funds funds

– Consider several modes – Review local and state owned assets Review local and state owned assets

• Review both deferred maintenance

and new improvements and new improvements

• Apportion $$ to systems based on

th d f ll d

35 35

the degree of overall need

35

Update all Needs Assessments Update all Needs Assessments Update all Needs Assessments Update all Needs Assessments

• 2030 Plan good baseline data for:

g

– Highways, bridges, aviation, transit

• 2008 AMHS Plan will update ferry

008 a upda y needs assessment

• 2008 Port and Harbor study will

y update system assessment

• Updated assessments will help

p p allocate $$ between modes

36 36

36

Crossroads Ahead Crossroads Ahead

Alaska Alaska Transportation Transportation Fund: Fund: Under Under I nvestment: I nvestment:

Stagnation, Stagnation,

Fund: Fund:

Safety Safety I mprovements, I mprovements, Gas Gas Line Line Stag at o , Stag at o , Dangers, Dangers, Congestion, Congestion, Repairs Needed Repairs Needed Gas Gas-Line Line Readiness, Readiness, Congestion Relief, Congestion Relief, Economic Support Economic Support Economic Support Economic Support

37 371 1