AN OVERVIEW OF LYNN CANAL HWY (Juneau Access)

prepared for theSenate Transportation Committee

AN OVERVIEW OF AN OVERVIEW OF LYNN CANAL HWY (Juneau Access)LYNN CANAL HWY (Juneau Access)

prepared for theprepared for theSenate Transportation CommitteeSenate Transportation Committee

February 26, 2008

Senator Albert Kookesh, Chairmanprepared by

ADOT&PF – Southeast Region & Headquarters Planning

---------------------BEGINNING OF PROJECT

--------------------------END OF HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION;SHUTTLES TO HAINESAND SKAGWAY

Project Purpose and Need Project Purpose and Need

1. Provide the capacity to meet the transportation demand in the corridor

2. Provide flexibility and improve opportunity for travel

3. Reduce travel time between the communities

4. Reduce state costs for transportation in the corridor

5. Reduce user costs for transportation in the corridor

Lynn Canal Highway Design SectionLynn Canal Highway Design Section

History of the Juneau History of the Juneau -- Lynn Canal Lynn Canal Highway (LCH) ProjectHighway (LCH) Project

May 1994- EIS process started

June-Dec 1997- Draft EIS Public Comment Period

1998 – Additional study of ferry alternatives

1999 –Preferred Alternative Report prepared

Jan 2000- Governor Knowles declares LCH preferred alternative; suspends work

Dec 2002 - Governor Murkowski orders EIS restarted; affirms East Lynn Canal is preferred alternative

Jan 2003 - Scoping for field studies begins

Summer 2003-Fall 2004 - Field data collected, analyses prepared

Jan-March 2005 – SDEIS Public Comment Period, hearings in Juneau, Haines, and Skagway

June 2005 – $5M GF appropriation for the project, allowing early final design work

August 2005-Preferred Alternative revised to Alternative 2B due to 4(f) ruling

History of the Juneau History of the Juneau -- Lynn Canal Lynn Canal Highway ProjectHighway Project

January 2006 – FEIS approved

March 2006 – COE/DNR Permit applications submitted

April 2006 – FHWA approves Record of Decision

June 2006 - DNR Final Consistency Determination and permits issued

June 2006 – Received $45M GF appropriation for construction of selected alternative

July 2006 – CBJ Local Concurrence granted for zones 1,2, and 3

History of the Juneau History of the Juneau -- Lynn Canal Lynn Canal Highway ProjectHighway Project

August 2006 – Lawsuit filed in District Court

December 2006 – Phase 1 Zone 4 Geotechnical Report prepared

October 2007 – Financial Plan Update submitted to FHWA, based on revised preliminary alignment

March 2008 – COE 404 Permit anticipated.

April 2008-First construction project to be advertised

Fall 2008 – District Court decision anticipated

History of the Juneau History of the Juneau -- Lynn Canal Lynn Canal Highway ProjectHighway Project

Highway SupportHighway Support

2 – CBJ Assembly Resolutions supporting highway

State House and Senate passed resolutions in support of highway

2006 Legislature appropriates $45,000,000 state funds to construct highway

SDEIS-1,600 commentors; 60% supported highway, 40% preferred a marine alternative

Mega boulders and cliff drilling photos from 1975 ALASKA CONSTRUCTION & OIL magazine article on Klondike Highway construction.

Klondike Highway: Successfully constructed in similar mountainous terrain 33 years ago!

Transportation Planning Issues: Transportation Planning Issues: Lynn Canal HighwayLynn Canal Highway

DOT&PF purposeState mandated planning processFiscal constraint issueFiscal impacts

ProceedingNot proceeding

What if the costs rise further?Emerging environmental advantage

DOT&PF PurposeDOT&PF Purpose

AS 19.25.010 The purpose of AS 19.05 - AS 19.25 is to establish a highway department capable of carrying out a highway planning, construction, and maintenance program that will provide a commondefense to the United States and Alaska, a network of highways linking together cities and communities throughout the state(thereby contributing to the development of commerce and industry in the state, and aiding the extraction and utilization of its resources), and otherwise improve the economic and general welfare of the people of the state.

Consistent with Alaska Constitution, Article 8, § 1, § 2 and § 5. Regards the use of natural resources and settlement of lands, and facilities to make this possible.

Mandated Planning ProcessMandated Planning Process

Federal Law requires that DOT&PF:Prepare long-range transportation planPrepare short-range spending plan, consistent with LRTP

State law requires that DOT&PF:Prepare long-range transportation planPrepare short-range spending plan, consistent with the LRTP

Lynn Canal Highway has been in at least the 4 transportation plans, prepared under 4 administrations

Fiscal ConstraintFiscal Constraint

New 2007 federal regulations require fiscal constraint in our spending plans

Requires that we align estimated project costs to estimated future revenuePermits multi-stage projects (several contracts over several years)

Project annual financial plan, has taken this into account

Several stages of work, over several yearsConsistent with historic share of highway funds to SE regionSTIP amendment ready; waiting on 2030 Plan

Federal Funds and LCHFederal Funds and LCH

LCH, annualized add’l funds; Federal funds estimate at 4% growth

$-

$50.0

$100.0

$150.0

$200.0

$250.0

$300.0

$350.0

$400.0

$450.0

$500.0

2008 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Year

Mill

ions

of F

eder

al F

unds

Fed $LCH$

Changing the AMHS cost environmentChanging the AMHS cost environment

Multiple plans, multiple administrations have all concluded:Dayboats, shorter ferry routes, and strategic road links will improve service and reduce system costs

Since these plans were prepared, the cost structure has risen sharplyLynn Canal Highway is the only project in sight that can achieve permanent savings while improving service!

Road and Ferry Costs in Alaska 2007Road and Ferry Costs in Alaska 2007The State cost to transport a vehicle on a highway was about

2 cents per mile

The State cost to transport a vehicle on a ferry was about $4.50 per mile

Figure 1aMaintenance and Operation Costs

$95 million (56%)

$74 million (44%)

Cost to Maintain and Operate Highw ays

Cost to Maintain and Operate AMHS

Figure 1bVehicle Miles Traveled

4 billion (99.5%)

21 million (.5%)

Vehicle Miles via State Highw aysVehicle Miles via AMHS

Rising AMHS Costs Risk its Rising AMHS Costs Risk its SustainabilitySustainability

Changes in AMHS Revenue and Costs

$-

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Years 2000 - 2007

$ Th

ousa

nds

RevenueCosts

EIS prepared at this point, thus

missing the recent cost run-up.

Hard Look at the NumbersHard Look at the Numbers

Over next 12 years:LCH project will require $350 Million, inflation adjusted (per 2007 Financial Plan)AMHS will require $2,040 Million, after revenue, inflation adjusted (per 2030 Plan annualized needs estimate, )

The likely AMHS costs in 12 years is equivalent to:

~6 Juneau Access projectsOr, 66% of the urban highway needs in Anchorage and Mat-SuOr, 33% of the strategic highway investments needed in the state over next 20 years

Context: Annualized CostsContext: Annualized CostsAMHS v. Lynn Canal HighwayAMHS v. Lynn Canal Highway

LCH, 2007 Financial Plan; AMHS 2030 Plan, 2008, 4% inflation, net of revenue.

0

50

100

150

200

250

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Years 1 - 12

$ M

illio

ns

LCHAMHS Net

The LCH (JA) investment is a small increment of total AMHS costs, but offers a lower cost AMHS for the future.

What if LCH Costs Rise?What if LCH Costs Rise?

Construction costs have been linked to global energy, steel and other costsAMHS costs have also risen rapidly due to these factorsNot realistic to assume road costs will rise alone.But only LCH offers a means of structurally reducing AMHS costs.Sooner completed, sooner this benefit is realized.

Environmental SurpriseEnvironmental Surprise

Ferries are superior to roads, is a sometimes held perspective

Fewer permanent impactsNo access by people to wild lands

“Carbon footprint” issue may change this view

Congress will likely enact major carbon reduction goalsFerries are more carbon intensive than is the highway…significantly so!

Serving Public NeedsServing Public Needs

The LCH project fulfills many public goals, because it:

Offers a much higher level of service, in terms of capacity, reduced travel time, greater frequencyReduces in perpetuity the state cost in this corridorGreatly reduces travel costs for public usersMakes travel affordable to the lowest income groupsConnects communities, resources and economic activity consistent with Alaska Constitution.

What Delaying LCH Would MeanWhat Delaying LCH Would Mean

Stalling LCH project would result in not meeting many public goals, because it:

Perpetuates a lower level of service, in terms of capacity, longer travel time, reduced frequencyLocks in a high state cost in this corridorPerpetuates higher travel costs for public usersResults in travel being unaffordable to the lowest income groupsLeaves less connected communities, resources and economic activityCements reliance on high carbon option

ConclusionConclusion

LCH represents a reasonable commitment of federal highway funds because: Serves the expressed purpose and need for travel in this corridor.Offers the only identified means of structurally reducing rising costs of AMHSOffers best solution in view of greenhouse gas mandates likely to be appliedReducing AMHS costs, achieves 2 benefits:

More sustainable AMHS in future is best for regionAvoided costs available for other needs in state