I'd like to call this meeting of the House Transportation Committee to order.
It is 1.42 on Thursday, February 5.
Members present include Representative McCabe, Representative St.
Representative Nelson, Representative Stutes, co-chair Ayeshide, and myself co chair Carrick.
Let the record reflect, we do have a quorum to conduct business and
please take this time to silence your cell phone before the meeting.
Before we begin, I'd also like to thank Jordan Nicholson from House Records and
Susan Quigley from the, no, Zachary Lawhorn from The Juneau LIO.
for staffing our committee today. Also our Committee aids Griffin Sukeo and Meredith
Trainer as a reminder for folks in the audience. If you have a note you would like to pass, please
get the attention of our committees instead of approaching the dais. I'd also like
to at this time recognize and invite representative Hymshoot to come join us at the table for today's
presentation.
And I'd like to recognize that today, in addition to our invited guests in our audience, we are joined by
Fran Houston and elder and spokeswoman for the AWKWAN. Thank you for being here today.
On today's agenda,
we have an overview of the Alaska Marine Highway Operations Board from Oneida Iyer's chair of The Amhop and
Anthony Lindoff, the vice chair at The AMHOP.
After that, we do have a presentation on the Alaska Marine Highway Systems Cascade Point Project from Craig Tornga,
the Marine Director, and Chris Goens, the South Coast Director.
And we are also joined today by Andy Mills, our Legislative Liaison,
and Catherine Keith, Deputy Commissioner.
So I'd like to first welcome Ms. Ayers and Mr. Lindhoff to please introduce yourself for the record
20 to 30 minutes maximum on this portion of the presentation today before getting to DOT thank you for joining us
We can't hear you miss Iyer's if you're speaking yet
Very brief at ease while we get the technology figured out
House transportation back on the record sorry for the Technology Challenge there miss air sorry from us pronouncing your name
Can you hear us?
Great. We can hear you too.
Great, thank you so much.
Good afternoon, Chair Carrick and members of the health transportation committee.
It's a pleasure to be with you today. Thank you for this opportunity.
So for the record, my name is one that airs. I am the chair of
the Alaska Marine Highway Operations Board.
I'm a resident here in Anchorage and I want to start by.
recognizing my fellow board members joining me today is also our vice chair Anthony Lindhoff
and we'll hopefully be hearing him as we proceed with the comment period, that question period.
But we also have other members of the Alaska Main Highway Operations Board
to work on behalf of Alaska's coastal communities and the Alaska Marine Highway System and I just
want to emphasize that we are all volunteer and that uh we've taken on these appointments because
of our shared commitment to a sustainable and sustainable Alaska marine highway. I also want
to thank Commissioner Ryan Anderson for the support and resources that it provided to the
by the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities,
and has been critical to the board's ability to do its job.
And I'd also like to thank Craig Tornga, director
at the last morning highway, and to his staff
for the information and responsiveness,
and the support that they provide to board
so that we can fulfill our statutory responsibility.
So, today I'd like to focus on three things, a brief history of the governance of, of
the operations for the history and governance, the operation's for it.
The progress that has been made to stabilize and modernize the last.
And then, what I think are the most critical issues before the Alaska Marine Highway System
I'm going to pause there and see if there's any further direction from the committee
before we dive in.
I think we don't have any questions yet, Ms. Ayers, if you'd like to continue.
Great.
Thank you.
So, with the governance, the Alaska Marine Highway Operations Board, and I am going
to apologize to everybody, I've been going this switch to just calling it the acronym
So the EMHOP was created in the 2021 legislative session and GHB 60th grade
with an effective date of January 1st 2022. The board was populated by both executive and
legislative appointments and we began our first meetings in May of 2022 so as with any new organization
That process always takes a little bit of time with a new organization, but early on the board was meeting several times a month.
It was quite accelerated schedule and required a big commitment on
the part of the DOT staff, AMHS staff and the Board members.
to accelerate our shared understanding of the challenges before us about the Alaska Marine Highway
our tasking from the enabling statute and how to develop norms about how the board was going to
operate collectively. During this time I went to point to Senator Kaufman and his staff who spent
uh throughout this period to better understand the legislative intent and to detail what the
board's responsibilities uh are with a racy chart uh those statutory directives and authorities assigned
to the elastomering highway operations board what we're responsible for what were accountable for
what uh we should do in consultation with the department and at what
So, that RACI chart is a part of the AMHOP webpage and it is
a document that isn't now included in all of our four packets as a reminder as to what
our role is as an organization.
So last year, the legislature reaffirmed its intent to maintain the
AMHAWK structure with both legislative and executive appointees.
And during that process we became aware that the board was not viewed positively by Commissioner Anderson in terms of providing valuable advice or consultation.
So as a result, we've worked hard to summarize our meetings in writing to the commissioner, generally within a week of each meeting.
and to fulfill our role as envisioned in statute, and we welcome more
two-way communication in this regard. So I want to turn now to operational
status. Now I have had an opportunity to
preview the slide deck that you'll be looking at in a few minutes,
and so I'm going to abbreviate this section just for the sake of time.
The Alaska Marine Highway Operational Status is improving despite a lot of ongoing challenges
with, and usually we stay an aging fleet, but I am going to stay, an aged fleet.
An inherited misalignment and underutilization of the Alaska class fairies, workforce challenges
that are pervasive across all organizations and sectors.
workforce has a lot of mobility across the globe. And of course we've been operating in an
escalating price environment throughout the time that the AMHOP has been in existence
and it's continuing. So these are all challenges that really complicate the future of the Alaska
As I said, I'm going to abbreviate my comments here, but I do want to add them, right?
applaud Commissioner Anderson for finding and naming Craig
Tornga to lead the Alaska Marine Highway System.
I think Mr. Toronga is the right leader at this time for the AMHS.
His management skills, his demeanor, and his openness
have been recognized and appreciated by the board
and I thank contributed greatly to our deliberations,
our understanding of the challenges and the current status of this system.
and he's very responsive to our inquiries. He spent a lot of time with the board over the last
four years. he provides very thorough answers and
he showed a consistent openness and willingness to listen and consider diverse viewpoints. So
we are very appreciative of his contributions to the boards process.
I planned slightly different remarks, but the headlines of the week really probably beg
that we start with the funding challenges and they are considerable.
They continue to be considerable the board has long known that the federal world ferry
money that are a significant portion of operating funds for the system the last few years are
there's always some contingencies and possibilities that those funds may not be available.
We had Senator Merckow's rotation staffers slated to address this on January 23rd. Unfortunately,
that meeting did not continue, did, not proceed because we were not able to get department support
for it due to the other challenges that the department was addressing. However,
And speaking to Senator Murkowski's transportation lead directly,
I can't really provide any additional information
than what you've really already heard.
There is a commitment between Secretary Duffy
and Senator Morkowski that the funds will be released this spring.
But there, and I will say that I spoke to
Senator Merkowski directly in December about the same issue.
to remain optimistic, but grounded in the reality that there is no order when it comes
to federal funds in this time period. So the normal grant making processes have been highly
It's, it's remarkable and unfortunate.
I will say that the board has a commitment to explore other funding and look for opportunities
to understand what other partnerships may be available across other federal sources like
tribal transportation funds.
And we do have on our agenda or forward looking agenda to have folks from the partner transportation
Those are not scheduled yet, but that's the board's intent.
Other than that, I would say that the next big challenge is fleet modernization.
That's part of the long-range plan that I know you'll be hearing about, and it's been
a four-way highway operation board over the first three years of its existence.
the most critical thing confronting this system,
aside from all the other challenges that we've discussed,
but in order to optimize the system.
The tabling it and the Hubbard have to be interoperable and those projects really have
to been concluded, particularly with the tablings still being queued up for crew quarters.
That's a long delayed project and small community service will never be fully optimized until
both vessels are fully online and interoperability.
Finally, I'll just say that the rest of the fleet modernization is, again, a critical issue.
And we have been long delayed with the testimony or replacement vessel. And it was welcome news
to see that construction bidding period is now open as of about a week or so ago.
the shipyards will be responsive and that we will soon be under contract with a
testimony or replacement vessel. The biggest concern there is that the
IIKA money and the top on that, I know that there's a great deal of concern
encumbered in a way that really truly secured them and so we really need to move forward
on particularly the Tuscamino replacement vessel which has been long awaited and as I mentioned
welcome news to see that it is currently open for construction bids. With that I'm just going
to conclude my remarks and I'll pause there and ask Vice Chair Lindoff if he has anything that he
Thank you, vice chair Lindoff
Yeah, thank you
I'm chair kerrick, and I don't know how much I can add other than just
I am a staunch cheerleader for our madam chair here
airs and
Can echo her remarks regarding?
Mr. Tonga and certainly the fleet modernization
But I'll just quickly introduce myself.
I am the Vice Chair of AMHOB,
recently appointed, I should say.
I think my began in maybe about a year and a half ago,
I believe, and so it's been a whirlwind
and learning quite a bit a lot from
This is Ayers here and I'm honored to be here
and, I guess, here at your leisure.
I mean, if you have any questions,
I am happy to blash.
We have a question from Representative Stutes.
Thank you, Madam Co-chair.
And I m not sure if this question will go to you
or to Ms. Ayres, but I' m intimately familiar
with the AMHOB legislation.
If I'm not mistaking, a report annually is required from the AMHOD board to the legislature via the Department of Transportation.
And I might be incorrect on this, but I would like to have it verified either
transportation, but there were some, I believe there was some changes made there prior to
it coming to the legislature.
Can you expound on that or give me an idea what those changes were that were made in
that report prior it to it, coming the to legislature?
two processes that are being merged into one pair.
We are required by statute to provide an annual report.
That process was delayed by the cancellation
of our January 23rd meeting,
but we do hope to have that to the legislature.
No later than April at this point,
it doesn't appear that we will be able
to reschedule that meeting before that date.
It does require at least some deliberation
and can put from the other board members.
We have had, as I have said,
a series of summary letters with three meetings
that will probably serve as the bulk of that report,
but I'm sure that with some of the funding issues
that have become more prominent in the last week
or so that the board will want to reflect on those as well.
The second process which is regard to the long-range plan, which again was a major focus for the AMHOP over the first three years of existence, and was recently concluded, the plan was modified.
For getting my timing, but it is summarized in a October letter to the commissioner and we did copy legislative leadership on that.
The board recommended the long range plan in one form and then when it came out in the public, it was slightly altered in key areas.
And so at our October meeting in 2025, we
note that those changes took place and that they altered the
long range plan from the perspective of the board.
And that also triggered one of our statutory authorities,
which was to say that there was a deviation from a plan.
We did hear from Commissioner Anderson that that was not his read on that situation.
And I believe if you don't have a copy of that, I'm sure it can be made available to you, but
I believed that with the exception of the fact that we have not been able to finalize an annual
report statement to the legislature for the prior year,
we've exercised our statutory responsibilities according to our understanding.
I did confer with Senator Kaufman on the October 25 letter because he was very specific about
that process when we were engaged with him in 2022 and 23 about defining how the board operates.
And if I could also just add an editorial note here,
representative students. I'm not sure who else on the committee may have been
involved in that regional legislation, but there was an intent in the way that
it was structured for it could be slightly different than just a typical
advisory board by giving us that component in this statute to issue a
corrective action notice. So just so I am clear, am I to understand that that
the recommendations of the Amha board were altered by the Department of Transportation?
Well, through the chair, our representative students, the board endorsed the plan as it was
prepared and written ahead as we saw it. It was either April or July meeting in 25th. And when it
places where it was altered and we became aware of that just prior to our October 25
meeting and the board discussed the matter and felt that it
was materially different than what we had endorsed.
Thank you. Thank You. We're going to take maybe one or two more questions total
before I move to DOT Representative McCabe.
And Ms. Ayers, through the chair, so what can you describe maybe one of the or two of
the major alterations that you saw to that report and how they were altered compared
to what the AMHOP wanted?
I can.
It is on a letter that is posted on the AmHop webpage and it's labeled corrective action.
There were some wording changes where there were three specifically, one where the original wording was a continuation of the cascade point feasibility study was changed to continuation
The second reads, the funding is scheduled for the construction of the new cascade point
ferry terminal was not included due to the ongoing feasibility study, that was the original
wording.
The final wording was construction, of a new category point ferry as we've done using
existing state appropriations, and the work will continue seeking out federal grants and
other appropriate funding sources.
The original wording was terminal lease payments for project costs related
to the proposed cascade point ferry terminal are not included in the 2045 long-range plan
due to feasibility study ongoing as of the 2445 LRP adoption long range plan.
And the final wording is changed to terminal leased payments
for a project cost related to proposed casket point ferri terminal.
are not included in the 2045 LRP due to the timing of the L
The AMHAW has not taken that position of pro work-on on cascade point.
Our request in April of 24 was for a business case study.
Typically, that kind of study would be, you know, a base case, do nothing.
level of evaluation and rigor as a sort of a stage gate process to determine whether or not to proceed.
We throughout the time development of the long range plan.
We did periodically have information presented to us about cascade point.
But.
The business case had not been made.
There was no cost benefit analysis that said,
this is the preferred alternative
and we should proceed with that.
And that's really where I think,
I mean, again, the minutes of the AMHOP
for that April 24 meeting would be indicative
of where the board was.
I believe there was actually, I don't know.
official. I know there was a motion and it may not have been a resolution but there
was emotion and so the board has not taken a position on tax pay point and I think that's
material here because you know the question that there are huge capital needs across the
And the prioritization of capital may not be,
and I think if you look at Commissioner Anderson's letter
to us in response to the October 25 letter
was that it's not the M-HOP's job to allocate capital.
And truly it is not, but our reflection is that
there are huge capital needs across the Alaska Marine
Highway System and the prioritization
of Capital for something that...
uh technically was not included in the long-range plan when we looked at it um at at the degree
to which we see it proceeding and um it's just uh in a it is a not in an a process or a project
development process that that we're familiar with in making those kinds of big capital allocation
Thanks, so one more, if you don't mind.
So the AMHAB Operations Board would seem to not be,
and maybe I'm wrong, but it would
seem not to be in your purview to worry
about big capital outlays, such as roads and ferry terminals
and that sort of thing.
Your Operations board, I kind of did a business plan
myself right here on the Laconte at 188 gallons an hour.
If we built Cascade Point, would probably take for 33 cars,
which is the maximum of the content would take 66 gallons of auto gas.
And yet for the Lecontae to travel that same amount would take 376 gallons so the savings
to the state is significant in my opinion and that's the operations part I think that
the Amhaub needs to take into account if I'm not mistaken the capital outlay is the
capital outlet that sort of our job wouldn't you say through the chair representative McKay
Well, first of all, again, statutory authority governing what we do.
Our responsibility is to ensure that there is a long-range plan in place and that the
last marine highway system is following that long range plan.
So that's kind of a baseline thing.
capital allocation does inform long-range planning and the items that were prioritized
in the long range plan and other capital needs across the system, again, were prioritize
as a part of that long wage plan.
So once again the planning process iteratively, as you roll forward, things change, decisions
But the timing of this one was puzzling, I guess, to the board in the terms of the
timing and the approval of a long-range plan and acceleration of capital expenditure.
Thanks.
That's really why that children letter came forward.
I'll save the rest of my questions to beat up Director Tornga.
Let's not beat anybody up today.
Representative McCabe, thank you, Ms. Ayers and Mr. Lindoff for joining us.
Feel free to stay on the line in case there are questions that would be specifically relevant
to AMHOB operations.
And I would just like to offer a comment that from what you have said, it sounds like consideration
part of informed decision-making about operations considering the very limited resources that AMHS
has to work with and so I want to express my appreciation for a full consideration when making
decisions and recommendations. So at this time I'd like to welcome our DOT folks to the table
I know we also have Deputy Commissioner Keith with us and
Legislative Director Andy Mills.
And as needed, I'm sure we can swap folks in and out.
I'd also just like to note for the committee and the public
that are watching us today, we are.
It sounds very likely not going to get through this presentation today and so I
just want to offer an update that we're going take our time on this one and most
likely bring this back on Tuesday as well so committee members can feel free to
ask questions at their leisure. Thank you for being here.
And for the record, Catherine Keith, the Deputy Commissioner with the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities.
And with me, it's a pleasure to introduce Craig Tornga,
the Marine Director, overseeing the Alaska Marine Highway System,
as well as Andy Mills, a Legislative liaison with The Department.
And soon to come up, we'll be Director Chris Goins.
He's the Regional Director for South Coast Region.
We certainly do have an extensive slide deck, so please let us know how you'd like to proceed as we go through them.
I look forward to the dialogue, and with that, I'll go sit in the back.
Thank you.
Good afternoon for the record, Craig Tonga, the director for The Alaskan Marine Highway.
All right, our first slide here is, kind of highlights what Amov has done in 25.
Starting in mid-23, start working with the board.
I've enjoyed the time working
with them this whole time we've been working
on the long-range plan.
But specific to this slide for April of 25,
you can see here for the quarterly AMHOP meeting,
what the Board has done with a recommend
to move forward with our five-year economic analysis.
made the recommendation to retire the Matinusca from service after we presented the pretty ugly
audio gauging report that showed all the wastage through the hole. It was everywhere through
the whole and on the car deck. And then the DOM had presented a waterfall funding model and they
for our workforce initiatives with some of the tribal
and Alaska Native groups,
and they proved proceeding with those MOUs as well.
And then they gave their endorsement
of a long-range plan at that point aswell.
In July, we had, they requested and had a meeting
with the DOT planning group as-well
to just see how our plan.
aligns with the DOT long-range plan of the AMHS and work through that process we did that
Monthly with
The DOT as well as we designed our plan to make sure we weren't getting off track and staying
Stand with division
They also reviewed the with Aida the catch-can shipyard ownership change the beginning of waterfall
funding model
and then approved for us to continue looking at simultaneously of both options for getting
a route to Canada. So we're looking to Prince William Hider at the same time
and we have some funding to continuing with that so they gave us that recommendation as well.
And then October as Juanetta just pointed out they did request a reconsideration on
Cascade Point and some clarifications at that time.
We think we have a question here representative St. Clair through the chair. Thank you. I have
a questions on this waterfall funding model. Can you explain that to me please?
Yeah, through The Chair, Representative St Clair, it's it a type of financial model that
just shows in kind of a waterfall. It's a vertical graph that shows the different segments of
cost. And so when they're working on the budget, they can show that waterfall model
It's just a different way of looking at the finances follow-up. Thank you Madam Chair
Oh, I was thinking that maybe that was the actual funding your any excess funding following over because then there are statutory concerns the sweep and everything else
Thank You for clarifying that you bet
Don't see any further questions here so we can go to slide three
Okay, the next slide
This this one here is really talking about
Our long range plan we we work the long-range plan. There's really four focus areas and and I actually conduct my
presentation to the board every quarter in that same format for the four-focus areas the first area is
Service to our communities. It's the thank you. Its the
Safe and reliable service, so I'll provide
key performance indicators of where we're at on the safety side where We are on a reliability side
And to make sure we're aligned with the vision,
the second area we focus on is,
it's the operational system upgrades,
it is the fleet upgrades.
It's a terminal upgrade.
It is everything around the management,
the assets and the manager and how we manage the business.
And then the third focus area is our workforce.
And we have a big focus
Alaska hire and development of Alaska Mariners and then on the financial side
our key performance indicator there is really our fair box recovery rate and we're expanding that
The board went through and they given their recommendations on
Everything in the long-range plan here based on those four focus areas
This slide here really highlights the most engagement we did have with the board because they really
Worked on our levels of service and for the different communities how we looked at communities
We looked it
Did they have other alternatives of transportation or are they relying
completely on the ferry as we work through this the board really took the
lead in this section and we do this this project through our first
our quarterly board meetings we were having in late 23 and in the start of
24. I really appreciated their input on this it
was a heavy lift and then we had a lot of meetings that we held
Very focused group meetings every quarter. We had some open houses
meetings on the long-range plan
We have meetings here locally on workforce and
The board was very supportive and all those they were on-the-calls
Here at page when we had every meeting I had in June
Oh, he showed up and was supportive was willing to talk and so I do want to thank the board for the engagement and
on this as we work through the plan as well.
You can see here from these bubbles here
just representing all the different feedback
we did receive from the communities.
And I think it was, we were pleasantly surprised
when we had go out with the last community survey
that we got 2,600 responses that people took the time
to fill that out.
So we're very grateful for that.
So I just wanted to point out it's, you can see on the right side, it is some of the
key feedback we did receive and you see the number one listed there is reliability.
We heard that from everybody and better planning.
So it was good feedback for the whole report and I appreciate the collaboration with the
public and AMHOP in putting that all together.
Director Tornga, that's an incredible amount of community survey responses.
I know when we do public feedback on most anything as a state, we might be lucky if we get a few
dozen. So this effort for public engagement is crucial. And I don't reliability tops the list
as the primary request from the public. Can you talk a little bit about what you mean by reliability?
Is that having consistent scheduling that's early noticed and people can know it's there is it having?
Consistent service to communities that we are under serving right now and just elaborate a little bit. You bet
How do I respond that through to the coach here?
the
It's all of that and it also
Not having the service interruptions
So they need that reliability so they can plan
For the changes we've been trying to make on the reliability side is really
We haven't
How on Edison we have an age fleet?
But it doesn't mean we still can't do our maintenance and keep it up. Yeah, it it has challenges if there are fatigue issues that sometimes will just
You know pop up and hit us unlike a newer vessel
But the we do track our out of service time
You can track out a service many ways, you can
track weather delays,
you contract regulatory delays.
But strategically all I'm tracking is what
the crews can control to some extent.
As an employee, you want to see a win, and so what I have here is anything that's a mechanical breakdown that interrupts service, we track that out of service time.
For 2025,
we had a 98.55% uptime.
And we reported on an uptimed, it's more positive number than a downtime.
So that is from an industry standpoint.
You want it to be above 98%.
around 99 and a little over 99, and that's really kind of the goal, but I've never
had a fleet that said 50 and 60-year-old vessels before, so it is more of a
challenge here. But that is a number the crews can really be proud of and
that reliability. So you try to build a reliability-centric culture and
recording our out of service time and our uptime so everybody can see it we we had to put in place a
computer maintenance management system a CMMS system we didn't have that on the boat so I mean
there's some steps to get there first we have to have a server on a boat and then we
had a starlink on both satellites so we'd have connection and we've had the server where they
and then implement this program.
And the crews are doing a fantastic job with it.
So it pops up, it has every component in there
from a reliability standpoint.
It's not just your main engines,
got air compressors all the way down to the steering pump
and what the OEM recommended service is for that,
whether it's on hours or time,
but it all in their and it...
And that hierarchy is built in there, thousands of parts.
And then that all pops up and tells them, hey,
you got this due today, you've got that due
today.
And it gives them a dashboard to show what's been done,
what do, what maybe past due.
So we have all that.
So that's the effort around the reliability.
And like I said, I really focus on that side
because it's what the crews can control.
Thank you.
We have a question from Coach or Aishite.
Thank you, co-chair, Carrick, through the co chair.
Mr. Tonga, first of all, thank you for your service.
Sounds like you are doing a great job,
so thank for being here.
Looking at the public engagement,
I guess my question is, you know, it looks great.
What does that tell you?
That level of public engagement?
Yeah, Co-Chair, Ayesha, ayeshine.
It,
Well, you see the passion for this system. There's no doubt about it and and engagement and we get the feedback, but it
You know as we interact with them with each community
We we do hear the importance and all the reasons of why they need to service what they don't have in their community
And why, they, need, to go somewhere else to get things done
You, know it's not just medical it see you know a car repair or anything like that you
Know we got a lot of them toed on and put on
and then
You know, they want their grocery runs at different times.
It's all understandable, but it's great to have that interaction with them.
And a lot of the, what we hear is what they were used to and what
they have today.
I don't think we'll ever be back to what
they used toe have,
but we're trying to build something that they can rely on today,
and if you go through the long range plan, it shows that.
Our fleet is actually a little smaller in the long-range plan,
but the port calls are more because we put an effort into
designing standardization in
the fleet, standardizing in in
the terminals, having interchangeability around them.
So they're all can load by
the stern or the side or discharge that way.
And then it's not just the vessels,
it is the terminal as well.
The terminals as we have one-offs.
You know, you can take Pelican.
the lecante that go there, no one else can.
So when the LeCante couldn't get there in the winter time,
because it's a tough run to Pelican,
you're going through icy straights,
and then you've got to go across sound,
which puts you right in to the gulf,
and it is pretty nasty run,
and we couldn' get it there for over a month.
Seaplanes couldn',t get their for a more month,
you probably saw Pelikan was on the front page.
But if we had a larger boat and a dock there that they could have tied up to,
you know, an Alaska class may have made that run.
But that's what we're trying to get into place is a standardization in the system.
And it's not just Southeast, you'd love to see,
you're in a plan.
We have a float going into Yakutat.
So we don't just rely on the Kennecot.
Any motion class could get up there and go and it goes to all our places.
Follow up.
Follow it.
And Mr. Tornga, this is more or less a comment.
I used to be a professional planner for the Matt Subaru.
And I've worked on some plans.
And that's a very impressive level of public engagement.
And it obviously shows me that people care.
But it also, that is the foundation for a long-range plan.
A long range plan is supposed to
be communities envision future for our system.
And it's supposed to guide policy makers.
So we use resources wisely and that we actually do what the public wants us to do.
So I just want to make that comment because if you don't have plans,
well, when you build a house, it might not turn out the way you wish.
So thank you, sir.
So I'm used to doing business plans. I've done them for years and
Interactive with boards on plans get approval and we have the discipline to stay with them
So, I really that's the dream here is that we stay it with this plan
Yeah, for the record and emails legislative liaison for The Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. This is the excellent
place to maybe put this context as well, especially for folks who haven't been as steeped in
ferry as the rest of us. So there's a whole history that goes before this, that is the
MTAB, the Marine Transportation Advisory Board,
the reshaping work group, which I just want to call out Ms. Ayers, Chair Ayres, and also
time, a lot of work, and that spawned, of course,
the recommendation that led to Representative Stuitz,
then Speaker Stutz, having HB 63,
which then brought Amhob and codified that.
And so this is all a lotta effort that
led the implementation of this long-range plan.
And I would just note, there's a
lot folks who, in many other contexts, will
criticize the department for continuously studying rather than doing.
And so as we have discussions today, note the time period of some of the conversations and
planning that we put into it and in this long range plan, it's time to act upon some
of these and that was, I believe, the reason that the HB 63 codified AMHOP as it was was to get
Representative McCabe. Thanks, so I'm gonna change directions a little bit. I love the long-range plan. That's awesome
How do you know it works?
So my point being and I am going to make a business case again here because
Airlines do it by business and their lines in my background. So when they make the Long Range plan
they know, it work with money,
so, I don't see much in here about the fair box recovery and
Determining if your long range plan is going work
If they're using it through the chair
represent mckade
If you look at not this powerpoint, but the plan itself we have a financial section in there and it
We're did forecasting there projected off of ridership
Historically and in forecasting forward. We had economist work on that with us. He um
McKinley resource group and so we we forecast for
forward the ridership and then the revenue. Now what we did forecast in there was CPI adjustments
annually going forward since I've been there there's not been a rate increase when we modeled it out
the gap between, you know, forecasted expenses and forecast
that revenue grew 90 million over that 20 years.
So the effort, the goal here is to keep this business viable.
And so we've recommended at a minimum the CPI adjustment
of the previous year and last year was 2.1% and going forward
and then when you model that out going
forward that gap does not grow.
And I appreciate that follow in so as a follow-up and and I think we all can
agree that the ferry is probably never going to make money but we
all understand that it serves a great purpose it's serves our Southeast
communities but I
think what we're maybe Fairbox Recovery was the wrong way to put it maybe
ridership is more important so Fair Box Recovery I I don't care as much
But if you do a long-range plan and you plan to have a go into a small village like Pelican or Angoon or somewhere
And nobody's riding it
Then the plan's not working. So how do we tell if the plant is working is it via ridership?
Is that part of how you're going to tell how to change your schedules, you know, how?
To modify the plane
So yep through the chair up there McCabe so the planned
First off, we're looking at the routing.
And each one of the vessels in the design,
if you look at 2045, there's only two vessels today
that are still there in 2055.
And it's the tasseline in The Hubbard
and the rest of it is all new or fleet.
It's designed to be more efficient.
It is also diesel electric designs.
And as we look the different port calls,
it all based on forecasted ridership.
As you know, the economic models don't show a lot of growth in some of the communities,
but we based it off what the forecasted population is in each one of communities.
So the Fairbox Recovery is actually based on ridership, so it's how many passengers
were on there, how much vehicles, and then that's you get to the fairbox recovery.
You used to be a little bit higher.
We'd like to see this get up around 40.
And if you go look at the plan, if we stick with the CPI,
we can see that we get ourselves back up
around a 40% fare box recovery.
Fair enough, thanks.
Please continue.
OK.
I believe.
Okay, and for the record, Catherine Keith, so I wanted to highlight the currently approved
Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan. This is from back in 2004. We are currently updating it
and look forward to having this out for review closer to the middle and have it final near the
The southeast transportation plan at SEATP, it really launched this bold vision on how we can
improve the efficiency of travel throughout southeast Alaska. It included a combination of,
of course, ferry access and also road connections were evaluated in order to find ways that we could
leverage some of the existing forestry roads, old logging roads that had these 4407E's
on them to combine road access in order to shorten ferry routes to get those
operating costs down and have several other benefits from that. So as we start
to talk about our plans and the plans that define how the department has shaped
transportation priorities for capital investment, you know these plans are an
important part of that
So I actually can we go back, yeah, Deputy Commissioner,
and this road extensions that allow fairies
to operate shorter routes, what were some of the specific
requests from that 2004 document?
Are there any specific road extension requested?
Yeah, thank you, co-chair Kerrick, and there are three following slides that speak specifically
to these connections that, if it's okay to proceed with those, it is visually helpful.
We do have a question from Representative Mina.
Yeah.
Thank you co chair Kerick.
Through the cochair, just a general question about the Southeast Alaska Transportation
Plan.
So this is from 2004.
So it was a document from over 20 years ago.
I know.
I mean, I wasn't there. I don't know if you were there, but do you know about the public engagement of this plan because I'm just thinking when we're talking about building roads and attachment to the ferry system, making sure that that is accessible for people who can't drive.
Yeah, thank you through the quote chair Carrick representative Mina
Yeah
I certainly wasn't there in 2004, but I would assume just given the high amount of engagement that always occurs with
Transportation plans especially involving the ferry system that it was extensive,
But we can get you that documentation for it
But it would certainly like these recommendations that are being made to evaluate the potential for road service
Not that that's the exclusive way to travel
people to travel. Thank you.
So, one of the recommended routes was looking at Sitka and the road access, the potential
access within Sitkka.
Director Tornga here can speak a little bit to the challenges of getting in and out of
Sitke, but currently, when the ferry system, and when ferry goes through, it has to go
through the Sergius Narrows, which has some complications with tidal fluctuations and
other things.
having a ferry terminal more on the northeast side
of Berenoff Island would allow a Ferry from Juneau
to go directly across Chatham Strait.
And from there, be able to provide
much more frequent service
compared to what's currently available in Sitka.
And again, some of the benefits here
may be pretty straightforward,
as Representative McAde had mentioned,
that when we can get the fuel consumption down,
the amount of crew time down per route, it begins to make significant impact on operating budgets.
Director Tongue, any follow-up on this one?
Yeah, for the record, Craig Tongade, just as was pointed out,
right now we have the main line going there, and they consume the most fuel for getting there.
If we had something that got over to the east side of Barrenoff,
with one of our dayboats that are a lot more efficient.
And then it, depending on where you come out,
you know, we're not recommending a route.
There's like three different routes
that the communities looked at or the OTs looked
at, but if we got the other side,
it lines up for calling at places like Angoon
and also to Cake.
And so it just makes our whole routing more
efficient if you get a road across the island.
They when I mentioned this when i'm in the communities and like cake or
They say we want to go to Sitka
because they know that they have the
The regional native hospital is going to be built in Sitke so that would really improve access to and from Sitko for everybody
Yeah, I have a couple questions here. I've kind of put myself in The queue as well
My understanding is it's about
16 miles across the island from one side to the other over to Chatham Street.
What is the winter maintenance and operations and staffing costs look like, not to mention
the build costs for a road that goes right across
Yeah, co-chair Kerrick and for the record, Catherine Keith.
You know, we can certainly provide some average dollar amounts for maintenance and operations
in the winter of roads that are more of the frontier style across rural Alaska.
But what we are proposing as we move forward into the next four-year statewide transportation
improvement program is to actually complete those preliminary reconnaissance studies
that haven't necessarily been done or aren't as current to help answer some of those questions.
to get to the capital cost and what maintenance
and operations would look like,
what type of maintenance station would be needed
in order to ensure that access.
So we look forward to having a public comment back on
those feasibility that they be reconnaissance studies
in the next four year step.
Okay, and it's my understanding just not being
from Southeast, that that side where the road
would come out is.
of Burnoff Island is uninhabited. There's not, there's
not like directly communities over there at this time. So we
would functionally have a 16 mile, if this were to go through,
we would functionally have 16-mile road to a ferry terminal
and would have to cover MNO for that. It doesn't, the road itself
wouldn't be going from one community to another community.
I think you can look at Matlachala and the road was put over to Annette Bey,
that's a 15 mile road, and yeah, there's that cost.
It's, you know, I haven't been here for those studies, but I understand
in talking to the community there, that was a real change to think that we're going to run out
there. But overall, it's less cost than a ferry running that same route over and over.
Representative McKabe.
Thanks.
Yeah, so a main liner is about 394 gallons an hour.
Is that a sound about right somewhere in there?
You're pretty close, yes.
Yeah.
So and we would need to make a business case, obviously,
at how much time you're saving plus.
It's actually more time because you're
going through the surgias narrows, right?
And it goes slower.
It doesn't obviously go at the max speed,
right.
So what about a bus?
16 miles on a Bus?
So I get that people don't want to drive their cars.
They don' want stay over there.
They want a burn their fuel when they're paying for a ferry
ticket.
So you envision that maybe the ferry system
will have a buss that will go out to the Ferry terminal
from somewhere in Sitka, maybe.
Or if we're talking Cascade Point, when we get to that,
35-ish miles, 32 miles.
Would we be running a bus do you think from Juneau
or from the ferry terminal now
and save these poor people the two gallons worth of gas
so that we can save 366 gallons
or what are 376 gallons of state gas?
Yeah, and through the co-chair representative McCabe for the record Catherine Keith
Yes, absolutely and looking back to metla catla. It's very similar
The mayor Smith had been looking at what it would take to for that in that case not the marine highway system
Although that could be done
But in the case would be the native village of met la cat la have a bus or a shuttle that they could then bring people over
drive that on the
Latoya and from there be able to go through ketchup can so yeah, I've absolutely
Thanks.
Please continue.
Yeah, another example of a similar connector would be on Kuprenov Island, and that would
allow us to look at some of the connections you see out here.
We have cake and Petersburg.
previous conversations had been about pulling those ferry terminals together, so ultimately
having a new ferry facility, you know, somewhere there in the northeast side.
This allows the same benefits in being able to reduce the amount of vessel miles by having
the road there and place.
And again, I'll hand it to Director Tornga.
Any comments on this?
Yes.
This road, they have a partial road that's going this direction already from
cake towards Petersburg and what this does allow.
Right now we get service to cake, you know, once one round trip a month in the
winter time, it's not what we'd like to see, not
what they're used to, but if they had a road they got over to
Petersburg then they could at least access
Alaska Airlines a major airlines it goes in and out every day that they don't have that right now and it could access
The mainliner which goes through Petersburg Northbound once once a week in Southbound
Once a Week so it would give Kate better access for air and and the ferry travel
I apologize to hog the mic today to the committee members, but I I guess I have a general question looking at
these slides. What's the average cost to build roads on these southeast Alaska islands? I mean,
we're talking about mountains and previously roadless areas in a region that's largely
difficult to get materials and supplies to. My understanding is it in Sitka there was a road built
previous four years or so that was about 70 million for seven miles of road. So what's the cost of
building roads across Kuprenov Island, for example?
Yeah, Coach Harkerrick, for the record, Catherine Keith.
What's interesting about these islands
is that there are existing logging roads, the forestry
roads that the state actually has easements through.
So there wouldn't necessarily be a similar comparison
to other road construction projects in Southeast.
But we could certainly pull a list and have
some of those proposed costs.
You know, we can circle back to that, but this would be another example of where through a reconnaissance study
We could get more specifics looking at exactly the status of these logging roads where material sites
Maybe what some of the logistics are getting in and out for for construction
That would that would great because you know
We're talking about cost savings in relation to some
of those projects but
State has a limited capacity for new capital projects right now, and we're not talking about going across a flat plane
We're talking, about, going, across
major mountainous
Island terrain, so it would be interesting to see some of those costs laid out more
Representative McCabe so we are totally going to shift the positions here
Coach Eric Eric and what about the cost to the environment of running a ferry? I mean when we do
the business case and we talk about 394 gallons an hour and burning fuel. What about
the carbon that we're putting into the atmosphere with the ferries versus
what we are putting in to into to atmosphere, with a bus or with car driving on the logging roads?
Yeah, through the co-chair representative McCabe, yeah, and we can absolutely do those calculations
We've done that for the cascade point ferry terminal and the reduced number of miles that the
ferry would have to travel and it's a significant carbon
emissions reduction thanks
So the last example to talk about right here is the in Chichagof Island where you have Pelican, Huna, as well as
Yeah, thank you.
Tenuki Springs.
And with these three communities here, again, they definitely don't have the service and
frequency of service that they do need.
This allows us that opportunity if we have a very terminal at either one of these locations
or a more central one to be able to achieve these same goals.
And as we, well, before I move on, Director.
Yeah.
Yeah for the record.
This this road is one that we recommended from Tenuki Springs to Huna. It does
shorten our run as as we make runs to huna and then we have to make about a two hour and 45 minute diversion down to Tenaki Springs and
then back up. There is a logging an old logging trail that goes there now and we'd love to see that updated
So, we could be more efficient in our routing if there was a road between Hoona and Tinnakee Springs.
So it's just, you know, co-chair, Carrick,
you asked a lot of good questions about the cost of these roads.
And as we developed our plan, admittedly,
we didn't look at the costs of the roads,
we were raking recommendations that made AMHS.
more efficient going forward and so we have a more affordable operation going
forward. So it is a study that still has to be done. We recommend them to the DOT
and the DOT as we'll be looking at that if it isn't a viable option or not.
Co chair. Sorry. Co-chair Ayesha. Thank you, co-chare. Carrick, through the co
chair, so again my apologies for my geographic knowledge of southeast I
represent Northeast Anchorage but it is a beautiful area but I've heard of an area
here in southeast called Kaufmann Cove and I believe that was a place where the
ferry terminal was far from the the nearstown that the ferry would service and
that it ultimately was shuttered was closed that that ferry
isn't there a risk when you move the ferry terminal further from the
community serves that it it may have issues with its economy yeah
kosher eyeshine yes I I was before my time that one but I've been asked about
that terminal many times it was really put in place for the IFA and they were
gonna be making runs from there it's a smaller harbor we can't go into the
But they did make some runs out of there.
And as you pointed out, then it wasn't viable form
going forward.
So that that terminal is there, but it
wasn' a part of the AMHS terminal at that time.
Representative Stutes.
Thank you, Madam Coach here.
I might be getting a little bit ahead of myself,
on some of these in looking at cost savings, you haven't factored in the roads. Does that
mean that the road and the bridges and all the safety issues going out to cascade point have
not been facttered in as well in cost?
Through the co-chair, Representative Stuitz believed the comment Director Tonga was referencing was in the AMHS long-range plan, the 2045 long range plan.
In that plan there is a recommendation to evaluate road connections that would allow us to reduce the time where possible on these longer ferry runs.
any forecasted service levels based on this. It was really this recommendation
continuing on the Southeast Alaska plans that we do look at what it would
take to build in connections to communities by road and as we go through
the cascade point slides that are coming up you'll see the analysis that does
of that ferry terminal and the changes that you see by having that terminal at Cascade Point
as well as we have capital cost for construction.
So thank you.
So let me ask a very simple question.
Was in Cascade point has the cost of the roads and bridges and whatever is going to be necessary
Finishing the roads out to Cascade Point,
has that been taken into consideration
with the numbers that have been currently presented?
Through the co-chair, Carrick, Representative Stutes,
and I know you really like yes or no answers.
I certainly would.
In the operating analysis,
the economic analysis recently completed by Ed King,
that did not include the capital costs.
We know what those are.
It was not included in that economic analysis.
So the simple answer is no.
To whether or not it's in the Ed King analysis, no, Ed
King, I'm talking about the numbers that have thus
been provided.
through the Co-Chair, Carrick, Representative Stootz,
the department has provided the full project benefit cost
analysis to the Alaska Marine Highway Operations Board
going back to 2022.
So yes, we have provided them.
Just depends on the study or specific presentation
you're referencing.
I give up.
No, thank you.
Yes.
Co chair, I checked.
Yeah.
Through the co-chair. I heard no and then I hurt. Yes
Yeah through co chair
character coach air I said
It depends on the report that you're looking at.
That's all I'm saying.
There was one report
that was evaluating the operating benefits
of the Cascade Point Ferry Terminal,
what you would see in cost savings
because of a shorter ferry route.
That is operating only, and we caveat it in that study.
So it's very clear that it doesn't include
the capital cost of that.
We can include those calculations very easily
in a separate or additional analysis.
I think in the report that Representative Stutz is referencing, those costs were not and they were intentionally not included as part of the operating costs because we wanted to understand if there was operating cost savings.
That's all follow up and we're going to take that one more question and then we'll have to adjourn today.
There was a lot of words there.
I guess maybe is what I got out.
So I just want you to know that that was confusing answer for me.
So thank you.
Co-chair, carrot, co-share, eyeshide.
Yeah, I apologize for being unclear.
The department has the full capital costs of the build out, we've shared those publicly.
We also have the whole operational savings of this system and we shared them publicly
I'm also hearing yes, no.
So I think maybe if the department could follow up
in writing with the committee to better outlay some
of the answers you've provided.
Representative Stu, did you have another comment?
No, thank you.
Okay, we'll face that.
Madam Chair.
Representative Mina, last question,
and then we are going to adjourn today.
Thank you, co-chair, character, the co chair, as you do follow up with the committee on including those capital costs.
If that information could also include the funds to maintain the capital infrastructure related to the project, that would be great.
Thank, you.
Yeah.
Okay, representatives, thank you to add to that if you could include
the cost that we will be paying to lease the land that you want to build the very dock on.
That would appreciate it as well.
I would say a one to two page document that pretty clearly identifies the costs would be really helpful for the committee members.
Thank you, Ms. Keith, thank you Director Tornga for being here today.
Thank to all the members of the public who have come.
This is clearly a really important topic for our whole state in the big picture,
but especially for Southeast and I appreciate the engagement.
we will continue this discussion right here on slide eight going forward at our
next committee meeting which will be on Tuesday, Tuesday February 10th at 1.30 p.m.
we have to accommodate again our house finance subcommittee meeting. We will
be here in room 124 and at that hearing we
on this cascade point project and again thank you for being here today.
At 2.58 pm house transportation is adjourned.