August 20, 2026 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM
This transcript was automatically generated and may contain errors.
Hi. Sure. Luke Bowland, central region pre-construction engineer. So the, the focus of the attachment there is the, the estimate there from L Street to gamble the sewer to Glen Pell did do an analysis on improvements on fifth and sixth between Gambell and Airport Heights. And so that as calculated separately in another planning document that just became final here, this, this weekend.
So I'm, I'm looking at the, the scope document, which by the way, it's really, it's quite comprehensive, more comprehensive than anything I've seen yet actually on this committee, which is great. Actually. I'm wondering what's, what is the timeline for actual addition into the TIP for, for this product?
Yeah. At this point we would have to get it into the MTP, so we're anticipating January for final approval of the 2052 MTP with our current schedule by the policy committee. And at the same time we can probably go ahead and move forward with an amendment to the tip and get that started. And then that should hopefully be finalized by April of 2027 by the policy committee. And then we have to send it to FHWA for final approval. I, I don't know how long that'll take. It's, it's taken a little longer to get things approved if they're short staffed.
Yeah. Looking at the, the project schedule, this, I wanna be clear fully in support of this project. I, I just have some, some technical and clarification questions. 'cause this has definitely caught the attention of the community and I'm getting a lot of questions and, and feedback on this. I wanna be sure we're setting appropriate expectations with folks. This looks like a pretty aggressive timeline. I'm, I'm wondering if this is realistic, given that we wouldn't actually have this incorporated in the tip until April of 27 and there's already, there's quite a bit of work that's slated for that year. Somebody wanna speak to that?
I can comment on that briefly and, and just say that yes, the initial project obligation is a bit aggressive given that we're already in late 2026 and without having the materials in the tip, we likely won't see that first authorization into early spring. But that being said, the remainder of the schedule, yeah, we do feel confident while aggressive, the biggest unknown here is gonna be the right of way acquisitions, which consent to be the biggest amount of time as we move forward with project initiation going into 2027, we would be able to improve upon the schedule and be able to come back with any, any changes to this. But at, at this time, this is what we feel to be a realistic schedule except official obligation window.
Gotcha. Is there, I think I candidly, I'm, I'm a little bit concerned about not just the, the right of way acquisition phase, but also the, the, the very real limitations of staff capacity to work at this pace, especially alongside existing projects that have already slipped this year. So what is, what is the staffing plan to be able to move at this pace and also attend to the projects that we haven't really seen a lot of progress on in, in, in fiscal year 26?
This is certainly a major project as the project gets added into the MTP and if it continues to be a priority for AMATS, then at DOT we would prioritize the projects accordingly for the municipality. This among the other major safety projects have been communicated to the department as being a priority. We continue to find ways and look for ways that we can partner with the municipality to help us on project delivery. And we're, for example, working through some strategies on how to do that with acquisitions right now. And I think as we have this project moving forward, we wanna do similar actions.
Yeah. Okay. I think, you know, we, we've ostensibly already added a, a pretty major project to the MTP with the addition of the safer Seward. And so I, I think I'm just questioning what is actually realistic for us to be able to deliver and on what timeframes and especially with a project like this that's going to be high profile. I, I just, I, I don't want us to set expectations and then need to tell very excited members of the public that what they expected is not what's going to be delivered. So just wanted to put that out there. A follow up question is there is, throughout this project, is there the option, will we be permitted at the Muni to lower speeds on fifth and sixth in the interim or will speeds remain the same throughout the construction process?
Yeah, part of the, in package of looking at fifth and sixth has to do with relinquishment and delisting the project from the National highway system so that it can be in greater municipal control. And so as that happens, we are looking at a right of way master management agreement that would enable the municipality to take on more of those responsibilities. And so as that happens, then yes, municipality would, would be able to offer that and have that, that speed control.
But yeah, assuming right now the department and as long as there's federal aid funds involved with fifth and six, which there would be in the project, then the department will maintain that stewardship and oversight agreement. So that does still come into play even with the both being in that, having that master agreement. So those are detailed in that document. So we'll be working through what that means and you know, ensuring that we both have those properly communicated and lined out. So however that long that takes, but I know the municipality eager to have that and as are we to be able to reduce some of our maintenance load as well. So
Whether that was something that flowed through this body because I've never seen one before. Switching here slightly, the recommended programming amount that's listed in this document is 262 and a half million. But then the following paragraph says the recommended 315 million placeholder represents a 300 million pre ICAP allowance or ICAP allowance plus a 5% ICAP charge. And so there's, there's two, there's the two numbers in the project scoping document, but then the number that we're at that is going in the MTP is the lower of the two.
Yeah, as of now, when you look at that $262 million estimate, there isn't a contingent contingency that's applied, which is typically 10 to 15%. And so what that 300 to 315 million is including a a degree of contingency. That being said, because it is so early on in project estimates that 262 is a direct dollar value that we can attribute back to this estimate. So the policy committee, we could certainly recommend that higher amount, which would include a contingency and then the department, we would apply that appropriate revenue in the rev to offset it in the revenue tables. And I, I think that's completely up for discussion.
Yeah, I think that that feels, that feels prudent to me if we think that that is perhaps a more, if that gives us some room to, to move in terms of this estimate that might be won't, I won't move to a like right this minute, but I think that that might be a wise, a wise choice for this group to make. I think my, my last question is actually with respect to just this document on the whole where did, who, who produced this, where did this come from?
There was one other thing I forgot to mention. With the changes that are in here, it will not affect our modeling for the MTP, so we won't have to delay the MTP for that. This is just a financial change on the end, back end and it's easy for us to get done at this time stuff we have going on. So just, I forgot to mention that earlier. I apologize. Thanks.
Oh, all. I did have one additional question, apologies. Oh, were you done Member Handeland? Yes. So the project cost is expected to be covered by additional funding above and beyond the historical funding provided by DOT within the a AMATS area. Is this funding coming from other, other regions, other projects, other places? I mean, how, how, what, what does this, what does this actually mean in terms of funding source?
Yeah, these funds will come from our National Highway Performance Program funds, NHPP. So the similar pot of money that the Seward Highway 98 to one 18 comes from. So it certainly does, it's a statewide program and so programming this will then limit other projects in other parts of the state. So again, it's a matter of prioritization here. And when we do have good partnerships with the municipality and there's a lot of support, then it becomes a lot easier to move these projects and help direct funds in that spot. So NHPP funds statewide and yes, it does compete with other interstate highway projects.
How are, are those, I mean is this going to, how does this change? Are there other projects that are going to be put on hold, I guess is what I'm asking? Is NHPP is formula funding? Correct? Like it is, there's, okay, so, so are there other projects that were anticipated for use of couple hundred million dollars that will be pushed as a result of this work?
We're putting together our next four year STIP for fiscal years 27 to 30. So in that document we'll see the initial stages of obligation hit for 2030. So we'll see that we won't see so much in that STIP the impact to projects beyond, for example, 31 and 32. So at this time, you know, until we go through the step process of programming, it would be very difficult to answer exactly what that looks like. I can say we are certainly over programmed and cost escalations are having a real impact on what we can do in a year. So yes, it would be pushing on other projects that are planned, but if this project can be ready in, what we tend to see is the projects that are ready to advance or what gets, what does move forward in those years. We're finding that if a project is ready, we we do have the funds available to obligate it and move forward on it. It's more of a readiness at this point than planned.
Okay, thank you. That answers my question. I think I, I, I'm just, I'm sensitive to the fact that in a resource constrained environment, you know, from like a state perspective, there's often, there's often the perception that Anchorage gets more than it's fair share. And so I think I'm just, I'm just sensitive to that as we think about some of these bigger and more resource intensive projects coming to Anchorage, that that can sometimes breed ill will elsewhere if other folks projects get delayed or, or, or are pushed out. So just something that I'm, I'm aware of from my like political fear. So anyway, thank you. And now I'm actually done. Thank you for your patience.
I've got a procedural question. So when we go to approve this, do we need to I guess do each one of these three separately or are we allowed to do them as a group? And you can do it as one motion just to prove what's in the memo if you want and then you have any changes If you wanna do, you can either include it in the main motion or do it amendment.
I'll just make quick comments. My name's Christie Terry, I'm here on behalf of the Anchorage Downtown Partnership. I'm here with our executive director, another board member and then we also have board members online. I believe our support of this project was provided to you in forms of the op-ed that we provided to Anchorage Daily News. And I just wanna say to the comments about just, I wasn't planning on making additional comments, but just to talk about the importance of this project to the state as a whole. You know, Anchorage really is the front door for visitors and residents alike. So it's so key for this project that the amplification is not just for the downtown but also for statewide impact. So that's the only comment and there's others here for questions. Thank you.
Alexa Dobson, executive director of bike Anchorage. This project looks really great From what we can see so far, it does have an unusually detailed scope but within it we see a lot of recognition of safety improvements, needs for multimodal transportation options, things of that nature. So this is something that is really encouraging and we do hope that it moves forward. At the same time, I do share some of the concerns that have been expressed about DOT's ability to deliver such a large project on such a tight time set timescale. And I hope that the resources are provided in order to accomplish that. And I also want to observe that the state does have the ability to deliver those projects that it prioritizes. So we have seen as, as an example of the recent records request that was made for some projects related to the Seward Highway widening, that the state is actually using its own state funds to accelerate construction of a wider section of highway within that safer Seward before the NEPA process was complete and outside of the federal process that needs to happen.
And that is something that is very concerning. Those are areas where, you know, there's a project that's already underway and yet the state has decided, eh, we're just gonna go ahead and do this anyway. So just making that observation that when the state has this priority and really wants to get it done, it certainly can. And so I hope that this becomes one of those projects that really does need to happen. It is a very serious safety corridor that needs a lot of, needs, a lot of investment. So I do hope that the state will put that effort behind it to deliver this project on time. Thank
Okay. Is there a discussion on the amendment? So in doing that math, 15% contingency is 301 million and then 20% contingency is 314.5 million. So if we want to proceed to 20%, I would say we wish we should use that valued 314.5. So that would be just maybe documenting in the amendment? Yes. In the amendment that is 20% upward for 314.5.
I have a question was the Gambell Street to Airport Heights, was that using I guess a similar, similar methodology for the estimate? Do we have to, do we wanna increase that also by the 20%? That's good question. Without the detailed thing, I would recommend we leave it as is 'cause it matches the Seward to Glenn PEL and I would hate for us to make a change that's not consistent with what that document has come out with. We can ask the project manager and see if there's a problem and then we can deal with that. 'cause this is not final approval. Never gonna see again, this is just getting ready for public. If we, we can reach out to the project manager and ask him and if there's a need to increase that, we can bring that back to you all.
Ahead. The non-motorized coordinator for this comes to us in partnership with the statewide DOT bicycle and pedestrian coordinator Julius Aon. So the US bicycle route system is a nationwide system of numbered routes by, along with the adventure cycle. They, they essentially just manage kind of where these routes are and what their numbers are. Much like the US highway numbered system, these are suggestive routes for people who are biking through an area on usually long journeys. They're not required to be used, they're not required to be signed or advertised in any way. There's no requirement for changing what's on these routes or, you know, building facilities or anything like that. It's, it's just a suggestion for, given what the facilities are currently, here's where we think bikes would want to bike on their way through this area. It is intended to use more scenic routes and quiet routes and not go straight through the center of cities.
These routes can be updated. There's an application period twice a year every year when the state DOT can apply to ASHTO to change the route through their area. So that's what we're working with now with Julius. Currently the route that's shown by ASHTO for the Anchorage area follows the Seward and Glenn Highway straight through the Anchorage Bowl. This is not a good place to bike and so nobody's quite sure where that route came from, but it is not advisable, it's not where we want to be shown. So I think even part of the Seward Highway kind of in the midtown or South Anchorage area is restricted access where bicyclists are prohibited. One of the only places in the state where that's the case. So not a good route. So we really wanna get this updated.
So Julius sat down and drafted a route and then talked to myself and Donovan Camp with Muni traffic, the bicycle and pedestrian coordinator there. And we made some tweaks to the route and decided on mostly what is before you today. So you should have a link to the interactive map as well as the static kind of snapshot of the map through the AMATS area. You can see it starts in the south end of the AMATS area using the old Seward highway behind Potter Marsh as a nice alternative to the Seward Highway. Then it comes up through the ocean view area on some quiet neighborhood roads with a couple of biking and walking links where our traffic isn't even allowed. So that's a really nice route. And then it connects up with the moose loop to take the coastal trail. I think emphasizing that scenic, you know, quiet out of the way.
Nice bike facilities, it connects to Ship Creek Trail to then connect to the Glenn Highway pathway heading north out of the Anchorage Bowl. There is, there was an error on the map that was caught after this was posted for the TAC. So this is the only change that we're suggesting from what's on the map before you, when you get to Eagles River, I think Christine can zoom in on the map here at the artillery interchange. We show the the red line going on the old one highway through the business district. But there is a highway path that goes right along the highway that you can see pretty well if you zoom in on that area. And we're, our intention, Julius is intending to apply to have the route go on that highway path, not through the business district. We had already flagged this before last week, just unfortunately last week. Demonstrated why we're intending to route on the pathway instead of through this busy business district on the driveways where a teenager was riding his bicycle on the sidewalk last week and was hit by a driver pulling out of one of those driveways. So just to assure you that, that that edit will be made before this application is submitted. And that can be noted if you'd like any promotion or support just to make it really clear if you agree with that edit.
And then continuing up through Eagle River and Chugiak, we opted to follow the old Glenn pathway in that area. It's a much more kind of rural quiet, there's very few driveways, really peaceful every time I bike it, it's much quieter than continuing to follow the highway path. So we are recommending that route. I feel like that area could go either way if there's strong feelings either way. And then one last point of discussion that came up from a BPAC member was when you get to the Thunderbird Falls area, if you're heading northbound, so at that point you have to get on the highway shoulder, there's, there's nowhere else to go. But when you get to Thunderbird Falls there is an exit where you can bike on a quieter road for a little bit and then come back on the highway. The problem there is if you're coming southbound, that doesn't actually, you can't do that unless you were to bike against traffic on the highway shoulder, which I don't think is legal. Not something I would personally recommend to anyone. So I think in the interest of providing a clear route that is not going to lead someone astray and then kind of strand them where they can't get back onto the route, it's better to keep that route on the highway shoulder there. Again, these are all just suggestions. These are, nobody's required to follow this and if at least currently there's no signage to direct him on the route. But this is kind of what we would recommend as the best route for people traveling through this area.
Asto does provide the option of including spurs on the route. So right now we're just looking at one kind of master route through this area. But some communities do show, here's a spur if you wanna get into town, here's into town or maybe just some other points of interest for right now, Julius is interested in just fixing this master route, getting people off the highway through town. But there is the potential in the future. Like I said, these applications are open twice a year every year. So at any time we could decide to add that route kind of once this is settled and accepted and then we can come back and see if there's something we wanna add to that current application window close October 2nd, which is why this is before you today. So the September agenda for your meetings is pretty full. One sort of disadvantage of the schedule is that the BPAC as a committee has not had a chance to take action on this.
So they only meet quarterly. Their next meeting is September 14th. I did send the committee members these materials when they were posted to the TAC agenda and ask them to provide me with any feedback. That is how we had it flagged that route through Eagle River, Will Tegan was very good about flagging that for us. And then a couple other members expressed support in general and agreement that we should definitely take it off the highway. So that was not a committee action, but they and their organization have had a chance to look at this and evaluate and provide.
So what we have before you today is a letter of support for the proposed realignment of this route. A letter of support from AMATS is not required for this to go forward, but since it uses both muni and state roads through the AMATS area, Julius was hoping that we could get a letter of support just to demonstrate that everybody in this area is on board with this. The municipality, they, they do need a letter of support from the municipality for this to go forward. Since it's submitted by the state, they want the local cities to have make it clear that they're supporting. Also that letter of support is in progress at community traffic department. So that's being taken care of. And just for everybody to rest assured that the city is weighing in on this also. And I expect they will support from what I've heard. So today we have before you the letter of support, the TAC did recommend that you approve the letter of support and support this route, including that Eagle River edit that I described and with the potential for considering spur routes in the future, but not with this application. So that is before you today. Thank you.
Yeah, so the BPAC will have this before then at their meeting will have letter of support to consider and they can provide that. Great to, and I think we need, we need to talk about how this works with our flowchart, whether it can go directly to or along with the application or if it needs to be approved by the policy committee first. Yeah, we want to talk about,
Yes, I will. Thank you chair. So back in April the policy committee met and or at one of the policy committee meetings, the committee kinda universally agreed that there should be some adjustments for the subcommittees for AMATS to have a little bit more autonomy to be able to send out letters of support, to provide comments during public comment periods, things like that without everything having to come through the TAC and PC for final approval, it's led to some issues where we can't get comments in on time. We missed the deadline, we have to ask people to extend it and it, it just, it makes things more cumbersome for everybody. So staff got together and kind of talked through it and came up with what, what would that look like exactly and what are kind of some of the limits because you know, we think it's great for them to have the autonomy but there may have to be some boundaries based on what they can send out when they send it out, et cetera. So we kind of went back and forth and we actually came up with the flow chart if you wanna switch to that team.
So this flow chart here is just a easy quick reference guide on, you know, subcommittee decision tree basically. So the biggest thing we came up with is if there is a current open public comment period, the committee should feel free to submit comments without getting policy committee approval because there is a open comment period and they're being asked for comments. If they do do that, staff would send it out after it's signed by the chair and the staff would then email the PC and the TAC with the information so they're aware of it. We have some adjustments to that process as well that I'll talk about here. But if there is no open public comment period, we felt that it was still okay for the subcommittees to submit communications. But that's kind of where the limit kind of came in. And when we talked through to staff, we felt that elected officials and anybody at the federal level was kind of the threshold where it should come back to the TAC and PC for review and approval.
So when we talk about elected officials, we mean the governor, the president of the United States assembly members, those kind of individuals. Federal, we mean anybody at a federal level. You know we felt that any kind of engagement with the feds brought it up to that second engagement threshold. If any of those individuals are on the communication, it has to come to the TAC or PC for approval now because people are very creative, we recognize that there is some ways to get around that and one of that is, well if you don't send it to one of those types of individuals, but what if you include them on the CC list? So say you send something to a non-elected individual but then CC the mayor on the letter, she's gonna get it anyway. So it's kind of a workaround for that. So we opted for if it includes anything on the CC list for a federal or elected official elected officials are federal individuals, it has to go to the TAC and PC. If the answer is no to all of it, then that is when the subcommittees can send that communication out directly.
We did run this through the subcommittees, the CAC and BPAC. FAC hasn't met for a while and they have not had quorum so we haven't been able to meet with 'em. But we were provided comments and edits and I think by and large the subcommittees have been very supportive of this change to the autonomy. Lemme switch to the P&P real quick Christine. So we have the P&P number seven that goes along with this 'cause we recognize there, there's probably some guidelines that we need to provide to everybody on this. 'cause there's some questions that they may have one that they will use the decision tree for the communications without needing policy committee approval and that staff will submit all formal communications on behalf of the committees. That's to make sure that the ccs are correct, that all the spelling is done, the head our footers correct, it's on our memo letterhead.
All that kind of stuff that we typically do with everything else. So keep it consistent through throughout aaps that communications from the subcommittees will not commit aaps to funding decisions, policy decisions and will not include defamatory language. We, you know, we've, we wanna make very clear to people that they are advisory in certain aspects. If staff are unsure about the communication or if questions arrive, staff are arise, staff defer to bring the communications to the TAC and PC for review and decision because there may be some instance that we can't think of right now that comes up and we as staff want the flexibility to bring it to you guys and get your review and approval of it. So technical advisory committee reviewed this, they appreciated it and they actually hit some changes. So I'm gonna go through each of these changes even if they're minor.
I just wanna make sure you guys understand them. First is to update the p and p to change the letters under B to one, two and three. 'cause right now it's a B then A, B, C. So it's a little confusing. I apologize for that. Next is to add a number four that's adding a disclaimer on all communications from the subcommittees that clarify their role in the organization because the subcommittees may reach out to groups or organizations that don't know much about AMATS and they may think that that communication from that subcommittee is on behalf of the policy committee. So we're gonna add a disclaimer to all communications that say, you know, this is not from the AMATS PC, this does not represent the AMATS policy committee position, but a subcommittee and advisory committee of AMATS amens, we gotta figure that out. And there's some options there to update the p and p to also say that all subcommittee communications would be provided in email and as an informational item at the next TAC & PC.
This is so that the TAC and PC then has the opportunity to review it and and act on it or do something with it at the next meeting or at a future meeting. It's to keep you all involved. Next is to update the decision to deflect the p and p listed above. And then also to, this one kind of came out that we, we realized it was a little bit of an error to update the decision tree language to reflect that all communication during submitted during the open public comment period was related to that particular open public comment period. We're not saying that a public comment period is open free reign to submit whatever you want on any topic. So just as a way to help put those constraints on. So with those edits staff and the TAC recommend the policy committee review and approve the p and p number seven and the attached decision tree with the edits outlined. I will say we know that there are some spelling errors on the flow chart. We will correct that as well. Thank you.
So what kind of, I guess communication would be where it's not, I guess going to an elected official or the federal, can you give kind of give some example probably a letter of support that we could write to This is where it gets a little bit tricky and we're just gonna have to maybe play it by ear. But if the BPAC wants to write a letter of support for the change that you guys just came up with, we could consider that at an acceptable level to where it is not going to an elected official directly it is going to an organization or it's not going to a federal individual, it's going to an organization ash him in this case. So that could be an example of a letter that goes out without needing approval from the policy. As long as the CC list doesn't include anybody that is elected or a federal.
And then I guess with the CC list, I mean I guess if something is like wild, like widely distributed there, I guess would that be kind of considered if someone who's like, oh hey, something where it's like almost like an op-ed where it's like hey it's very general public. I mean elected officials would be seeing that. Would that fall into this flow chart of it having to come to the policy committee or because it's not, I guess directly sent to them, would that not be included? Yeah, I think what we're really trying to control here is what amass does and that's really all we have purview for. So as long as they're not directly on the letter either to or in the CC list and say somebody comes along is like, I'm gonna send it to this elected official on my own outside of the AMATS process, we can't control that and that's it's public information issue at that point. So I think we're really just looking, as long as they're not on the letter directly then it's fair game.
Great further discussion by the committee. I, I appreciate it. I recently received a letter from BPAC that did go through the policy committee and it was a letter to me. So I think this and reducing some of that extra process allows feedback to have a stronger voice without the policy committee having to add policy to it.
Yeah, so thanks for the work on this. It was one of our goals was to establish more policies and procedures for a mat. So this is a great first step. Are there any objections to the motion? Hearing none, the motion passes as recommended by TAC. Moving on to action item five D. This is the funding program, our transportation improvement program, administrative modification number nine. Aaron, are you presenting on this? Yes,
I will chair. Thank you. So we have some more changes. These are for the highway safety improvement program table number seven. So these changes came from the Department of Transportation. So you have this primary memo in front of you and then you have a secondary memo that is in paper copy form for you with some additional changes that came in after the primary one was posted. So I'll go through the primary first and then the secondary one. So the primary one, there are four changes here that are being looked at. First is for the anchorage flashing yellow arrow and signal head displays adding construction to the phase plan for FY 26. This is for the stage one project HSP 0 0 3 1. Remove the funding shown in beyond 26. So the beyond 26 funding for this is duplicated in the parent project. So there's two hits of construction funding that aren't actually gonna happen. It's only one of them. So we're, we're removing the beyond 26 in the child project. The stage one,
Just so you know, these changes do not have an impact on fiscal constraint 'cause it's in the beyond years and it's really just an informational thing that we're updating for everybody. So it helps reduce confusion. Next is the Tudor road Baxter Road to Patterson Street, channelization HSP 0 0 2 0. This is to add some additional design funding in FY 26 2.029 million and increase the overall total project cost. Next there's HSP 0 0 2 6 Anchorage SIGNALIZE intersection cameras add construction to the phase plan for FY 26. What we did here as well is really just a funding, you know, an accounting type of thing that we did. We wanted to make sure that everybody was clear that the FY 25 funding was aced and that the FY 26 funding is the conversion. So the AC is typically when you use non-federal funding and then the ac, the conversion is when you use federal funding to pay yourself back for the AC that you did.
So the total project cost does not change on this one and it's just reflecting that AC to help just give more information for everyone. Next is HSP 0 0 3 0 or 0 0 3 3 Mountain view drive safety improvement as designed to the phase plan for FY 26 of 250,000 and HSIP penalty fund code and there's no match required for it. So it's just additional design work that is needed for the project. It's pretty common to receive a second hit of design funding for projects. So okay, those were the ones that were reviewed by the TAC and recommended approval. Now we have a couple of extra ones. One I provided to you in an email and one that just came in this morning. So bear with me as I walk through them. The first is for HSP 0 0 1 5 fifth Avenue, Concrete to Karluk Street pedestrian improvements. So increased funding in FY 26 from 3.86 million to 5.481 million based on a request from DOT.
It's for the final certification. So they did the final certification of the project and found out that the construction and utilities cost is higher than what was shown in the TIP. So we needed to update this. We also found that the pre 2023 funding is not correct. So we updated that to show 800 5K. So the overall total project cost is increased but the portion within the fiscal years of the tip is only increased by 1.614 million. So it meets the threshold for the admin mod work. But again, we're just trying to be complete so people know what's going on with these projects. Next change is HSP 0 0 3 1 flashing yellow arrow and signal head display improvement stage one. I find this familiar, we've already talked about this particular project. Turns out there was an error that was discovered and we don't know how this happened, but at some point in FY 20 or the FY 25 funding was inadvertently removed from the TIP program and it should not have been because it was obligated in FY 25.
So what we're recommending is add it back in to reflect 10.042 10.042 million with the HSIP penalty fund code with utilities and construction. A lot of that is just to correct the error. So the record is straight on what happened with that project. We've been getting questions about what is going on. There's construction, you know, happening for this, but it's not reflected in the tip and we discovered the error and thankfully DOT and I worked on this yesterday and this morning to come up with what happened. We don't really know what happened. So I want to apologize to DOT for that. It was not intentional, it just happened I think in the, the shuffle. You know, we've moved into doing admin mods every month now and I think it's taken taken us all a little bit to get used to. So, and then there's another update as well.
Some additional funding is needed for the FY 26 for utilities construction and that is increasing it from 150,000 to 1.23 million for some additional back plating and some additional retro reflective back plating. Sorry, I'm looking around, I don't know who I have the email somewhere, but I can look for you if you, that is, it's just additional utilities construction funding that need to keep the project moving forward. So I feel comfortable bringing this additional change to you even though it seems like it's a big amount because the overall project cost is really just being updated to reflect where they were at so people can see how much has been utilized on this project and to keep us all on the same page. So staff's recommendation is to incorporate these two edits into the ones from the technical advisory committee and approve admin mod number nine. Thank you.
I think have some questions, but maybe not from Mr. Island. I think I'm, these might be more for, for project teams. I think the, the Tudor Road, the Baxter of Patterson Street Channelization project. So this is this additional 2 million, what, what is it? What is it for?
Hey Luke Boland, the DOT Preconstruction engineering. So I don't know the specific breakdown of where that 2 million increase came from within the project, but kind of to Aaron's comments, it's a, the final estimate for this project as we're completing design, this has been certified and so right now we're in the process of requesting construction funding for this project with fiscal year $26. And so this is the most accurate construct or pre-construction estimate that we're gonna have on the project before we actually start breaking ground.
Gotcha. So so I I did, I did a little, you're all shocked. I know I did a little math and I'm wondering, so this is like a 35% increase in the overall project cost, which is really, is pretty significant. I mean I realize it's comparatively right, not a, not a, it's $2 million, but this, this we've got a 35% increase in two to road channelization. There's a 40% funding increase for the fifth Avenue project. There's, I mean the, these are like pretty significant shifts, funding shifts that seem to be happening with these safety projects. And I'm, I'm wondering what, what is that attributable to, 'cause that, that feels like it's kind of outside of the tolerance of what we would expect to see. So wondering yeah, if there's, if there's some trends you can speak to or what, just what's going on?
Yeah, sure. So I, I guess two parts of that, it's tough to say. One, the previous estimate was created how long it's been since we updated it. And then also it depends on what bids we're receiving. So we're constantly updating our engineering system based on projects that go out our competitively bid and we'll use that to, to hone in on what the next project we're gonna advertise is. So I, I don't know exactly where the trends might be within that estimate, but I'd say we're always trying to keep it as up to date as possible just on the big climate.
Sure. Yeah, I think that that's helpful. That's helpful to hear. I I think my, you know, if we track back a little bit, little bit to the, we, we, we built in a, you know, a 20% tolerance for the fifth and sixth project. But I mean, based on kind of the, what we're seeing here, which is more like 30 to 40% in terms of, you know, that initial what we think it's going to cost versus where we end up. I, I just, I think that's maybe bears some, some scrutiny, not necessarily because we don't anticipate that project costs will increase, but the scale of increased matters, especially as we're thinking about operating in a fiscally constrained environment. So just noting that those are, those are big, those are big numbers. Our big percentages I should say. Not necessarily big numbers, but they could have larger impact elsewhere. Let's see, similarly with the, the Concrete to Karluk project on fifth Avenue, the, the 40% funding increase for construction and utilities work. What, what utilities are we working with in this, in this area?
Okay. Yeah, that's helpful. As an aside, you will get so, so tired of hearing me say this, but I'm gonna say it every time we talk about these, I I just think it's such a misnomer for the public to talk about pedestrian barriers as pedestrian improvements. I just think that's so problematic in our language and I realize that that is, those are the terms that we use, but I think when the public hear is pe pedestrian improvements, they think pedestrian access, they think ease of movement. They think we're constructing something that makes it possible for pedestrians to actually get around, not something that prevents pedestrians from getting around and, and crossing the road. And so just, and in looking at this, I, I understand why this is the, the, the design and the, the, the choice that has been made in this area, but I, I think it is, it is a disservice to say that this is a pedestrian improvement. So I hope that, that, again, you're gonna get tired of me saying it, but I'm gonna keep saying it on the record. But this is not what we should be thinking about when we think about pedestrian improvement. This is, this is something entirely different. Thank you. I have no further questions.
I I have a question back to Member Baldwin Day, just, just on that, 'cause that's excellent point. There's a lot of general improvements, increased lighting for example, that do improve pedestrian safety. But understanding your perspective, how, how else could be encompass that, that you think would be more accurate?
I mean, I think that the bulk of the project is a, a pedestrian barrier. And so yeah, I, I think there's, I have to think about, you know, how to, how to wordsmith that to more accurately portray what it is that we're we're doing. You know, I think when you talk to members of the public and you say, oh, we're making pedestrian improvements, they think, oh, you're building a pedestrian overpass, you're creating a crossing. You're, you know, you're, you're facilitating movement rather than impeding it. And, and so I I, I don't think I have a great replacement term in mind. I, I would certainly be willing to think on that, about how we could more accurately reflect the nature of a project. But you know, if someone is only reading Concrete Concrete to Karluk Street pedestrian improvements, I don't think what they envision is a a, a median that is essentially a six foot wall down the center of a road. And I don't think that's what people think of when they think pedestrian improvement. So, so thinking about transparency with the public, I think that language could use some work
Alexa Dobson, executive director of bike Anchorage? To the question of better terms that might be used to accurately describe this project, I would suggest hostile architecture or perhaps anti pedestrian barrier. Those are accurate terms for what is being built here. Member Baldwin Day is absolutely right that this is in no sense a pedestrian improvement and the experience that we have had so far within the city with other anti pedestrian barriers of this type. For example, the one that was installed on Minnesota at Northern Lights has been an absolute failure. There have been several pedestrian deaths there in the years since that was installed. It has not effectively made the area safer or more accessible for pedestrians. It has made it more hostile and the idea that we are not only perpetuating that model elsewhere in the city, but also spending what, 40% more money now to do that is really wrong. So we're gonna just reiterate our opposition to that project in its entirety and ask the policy committee to take action to refuse this increase in funding to refuse this project in any way that we can to send it back to be re-scope. There are absolutely ways that we could make that area safer for pedestrians that don't involve building a hostile barrier and impeding people's ability to get across the street. Thank you.
Justin Therriault, just a resident in the Turnagain neighborhood, Just to echo member Baldwin Day's sentiments about the naming of the project, irrespective of what you want to call it. When the similar barrier was put up on Minnesota and I first read about it, I was pretty excited because I'm a pedestrian in that area quite often and usually it takes upwards of seven minutes to go kitty corner across that intersection. So my impression was that those improvements were gonna constitute things like pedestrian crossings and when those didn't appear, admittedly I don't remember what the language was around it. I was a little bit frustrated by that because I was given to believe that it would make life easier for me to transit that intersection and in no way, shape or form has it done that. So just seeing that this could be implemented somewhere else and we're spending money on that, it doesn't really solve any of the problems at the intersection is frustrating.
Thank you. I'm Lindsay. Hajduk. I serve as the Director of Community Engagement and External Affairs with NeighborWorks Alaska. And I also wanna comment on this Fifth Avenue project, the pedestrian barrier from Karluk to Concrete Street and would echo people's calls that this project should be paused re-scope and really put pedestrian safety, access and convenience first. I'm not speaking on behalf of the Fairview Community Council, but I do work with them very closely on the reconnecting Fairview effort. And the neighborhood has been working for years to improve safety within the community and including prioritizing and advocating for highway safety improvement program projects like building lane drops on Gambell & Ingra Street, which we still don't have commitment from the department on. They had been working on that well before 2019 and, and beyond when the, this initial barrier project was first included in the program, the council did take action back in May of this year pushing for a new design, different treatments, coordination from the department.
I think there's still a lot more work to do on that front. So I would be really wary of moving this, this increased funding forward. I'm also trying to follow along online and I not seeing that description in the posted documents, so I couldn't connect or coordinate with our Fairview community leaders or community council members either. So I'm not sure if they're aware of this increase, but I can safely say that we really are trying to prioritize safety and connectivity to make it safer, more convenient, and a priority for supporting people walking, biking, or rolling through the neighborhood. So really caution the policy committee of increasing this funding without real work to meet communities priorities and needs. Thanks.
Absolutely. Yeah. Noah King, DOT project manager. So as we heard with the development of the Minnesota version of this, the community was not involved in the reconstruction aspects of it. So in order to avoid that on this project, we had an open house. This spring we have a website that provides opportunities for feedback and we visited all the community councils in the area. So personally went to Mountain View Interview Airport Heights and downtown Community Council to ask for their feedback. The specific barrier that was chosen was the one selected by the most community members. So there's very strict limitations on that. You can only have crash tested barriers, so there's not a lot of good options, but we worked with Fairview and look through all, I think 131 of the FHWA approved options, and this was the, the best one that we could find. As far as the other aspects, we also are including a lot more lighting than we had initially anticipated in the project.
So on the north side of that second of street, there's a sidewalk with light poles that are between the sidewalk and the, and the road. One of those poles is in the sidewalk directly. We removing that so that maintenance equipment can get through the area and have a better time clearing that, as well as improving the lighting throughout the corridor. We're also added an additional fence based on community feedback on the north side, adjacent to the Anchorage jail fence to encourage people to use the carlock construction more. As far as access goes, we are not taking away any access. All of these intersections have four legs of crosswalks, and I think, so media barrier has a 86% reduction in pedestrian fatalities from the studies that we used, whereas a mid-block crossing, even if it's signaled, is much lower, lower than 50%. So this is by far the most effective safety treatment for this area.
Yes. Actually, actually trying to pull up the public crash portal, but I'm, I'm not having much luck. I would like to, I would like to amend this action to remove the additional funding for the concrete to Concrete to Karluk Street Project pending additional conversation with the community.
Yeah, I will, I'll speak to it. So it, it occurs to me, several things actually occurred to me. One of those is that this particular section of roadway has had historically poor lighting for a very long time, which contributes to a lack of visibility, especially during winter months. I, I am, we've also heard that it would be impossible based on the current speeds on five and six to do any other type of pedestrian improvement or intervention because installation of any sort of like pedestrian signalization or something like a hawk signal or an on demand pedestrian beacon is inappropriate for installation that speeds over 35 miles an hour. So concurrently, we have a project right now that would change the calculus somewhat because this project falls inside of the boundaries of the fifth and sixth improvement that is being planned, that the entire, the entire length essentially of fifth Avenue, which means that there are other actual pedestrian improvements possible in this location that would actually make pedestrians passage easier rather than simply erecting a six foot wall in the middle of the roadway, which I posit to is also ugly.
And having that on one side of the road be welcome to Anchorage sign is on the immediate opposite side is a little bit of an interesting contrast visually. And so I think there are, I think there are other options that are currently in play based on the fifth and six project in terms of pedestrian improvement and pedestrian safety that were not previously available to us when this project was initially brought forward. And I think we ought to consider that and rather than spending additional millions of dollars on something that may not actually be an effective treatment at this point, there is some, the potential to go back to the drawing board, I guess is what I'm saying. And I think, I think the lighting is absolutely appropriate. I think part of the reason that pedestrians end up in the roadway along the stretch is precisely because it's snow removal is difficult with the light poles being placed where they are. And so you end up with people who are fundamentally walking in the street because the sidewalks are impossible. So I, I think there's a confluence of factors here that have led us to this point, and I think we can do better. Quite honestly, I think we can do better than this and I, I don't think we should spend money now just because we've said we would. I think there, there are other alternatives and we ought to consider them. So that is, that is my rationale for this amendment.
Okay. A couple questions. So on this it says that the cost increase is for final certification amounts. So I guess my question for DOT would be effectively, if we're not approving this is, I guess killing the project as it's currently designed. And I'm assuming, I mean, we're final certification, so I mean shovel ready, ready to go.
Yeah, Luke Bowland, preconstruction engineer. So yeah, this, this project is a critical obligation for us here this year. If this increase isn't approved, this can't advance because we need to have the adequate funding to construct the project as designed. The, the design did look at a lot of the different alternatives that have been discussed here. I think we had comments about the data for the pedestrian barrier versus a hawk or a crossing in these loca in this location. I think one of the challenges too is there's not a lot of pedestrian activity in this area. So a hawk crossing here wouldn't get used a lot, which at the end of the day probably doesn't lead to drivers recognizing that. So when you do have people using it, you don't have a pattern there that's gonna help that be an effective crossing or an effective treatment. One of the other things to consider here too is the highway safety improvement program is a mandatory obligation for us in any given fiscal year. This project here is penalty funds for vulnerable road users. And so this even more important HSIP obligation than some of the others within this category. And it's critical for us receiving August redistribution. So by removing this project here, that may also impact, I think August redistribution ISS looking about 50 to $60 million of additional funding coming to the state of Alaska for a variety of different projects that this may also impact. So
And just another one, and just to clarify, so this doesn't, I was looking up at the kind of project design here. This doesn't remove any current access that pedestrians are, are legally allowed to use. So from Concrete Street, there's an access there for people to be able to, to cross a signalized intersection and then all the way up at Karluk Street. So there's, there's no reduction in legal access, correct?
Yeah, thank you. And then as a reminder from what Mr. King had said, this has gone through public process and the design and and mechanism selected was what was endorsed and most popular with the public at that time. So I believe that we've done fair due diligence on this. Yeah. Mr.
So the, the data that we have is usually when a project is nominated. So we're looking at, you know, when the project moves forward, we'll continue to monitor that, but that's why you'll see the, the five year window prior to the, to the nomination. So looking at recent traffic data,
So I think that's, and I I, I'm, I'm, I'm concerned that we're getting into a little bit of a, I mean, we're getting into a little bit of a sunk cost fallacy here because, you know, just because we've invested funds to design a project doesn't mean that that project ought to be delivered if it's a project that doesn't fit the new facts on the ground. And so I, I think my concern is similar to, to Mr. Doehl's, we're we're using crash data that is, that is a decade old. The crash data is, is it's vehicular crash data, right? These are not, these are not all pedestrian incidents. And so the fact that we are using vehicular crash data to justify what is ostensibly a pedestrian improvement project that we're paying for with penalty funds because our pedestrian, our pedestrian fatalities and serious injury numbers are so bad.
Like none of this makes, none of this makes rational sense to fund. And so I, I understand that August redistribution is a significant issue here, not disagreeing with that. I just think that we could do a better job of creating better pedestrian infrastructure in along this stretch that actually aligns with what the data has to say, the facts on the ground and the reality that fifth and sixth are going to look very different and behave very differently once the project that we've just added is completed on what appears to be a fairly aggressive timetable. And so, I I I don't, I don't think it's responsible is what I'm getting at. I don't think it's responsible for us to deliver a, the, the facts when the circumstance under which the project was conceived is are different than the circumstances under which the project will be delivered. So I just, I I I think that lighting yes, improved sidewalks, yes.
A pedestrian barrier down the center that costs an additional $2 million to construct over. I mean, and we're only talking about a few blocks. We're gonna drop, we're gonna, we're gonna tell the public that we just built them a $5 million wall down the middle of the avenue. I don't think that that is justifiable. And so, particularly with the backlash I I have, I have yet to run across a member of the public that thinks that the Minnesota cheese grater was a good idea. I have yet to hear anyone say, I, you know what? I really like that. I'm glad we did that. No one has said that. And so I, I think part of our job here is to also be realistic about what we're, what we're doing in the public eye and to make sure that the public believes that we are delivering projects in their best interest. And I don't think that the data supports this project. I don't think that the the price is right. I don't think this design is right. And I mean, no disrespect to the folks who have, who have put time and energy and effort into developing this, this is, but I, we're, we are in a fundamentally different world now with fifth and six being transferred to the municipality. So I I, I don't think that this should move forward in its current form.
I'd like to provide just a couple comments on our HSIP program in general because it is only a data driven program and we actually reevaluate our HSIP projects on an annual basis. So when our HSIP projects were selected and do go through the, the AMATS process for project domination to begin with, these projects are continually reevaluated for funding based on their impacts and safety improvements. So this project would not have continued to proceed without the dually evaluated safety data because we do certainly use more current data than that. Even though at that time, you know, there was some reference to older data for, for context. So we reevaluate the data prior to moving forward with obligating new funds every year. So it's possible if another project of a more urgent need surpassed this, that a project that took construction could be delayed. So it's one thing that this is very data-driven. It is urgent need both for the corridor itself and our safety program. So I do urge the committee to please allow this project to proceed as has been discussed with the public up until this point. And as our project engineer and traffic officers have recommended to us.
I don't have a specific breakdown of what the wall costs versus the lighting. The wall is more expensive than the lighting. It's probably going to say 60 40 wall to lighting right now, but there's some integration in there as well, so, okay. But like we were talking about this as an HSIP project. So the nomination was for the median barrier and that's where the crash reduction factor comes from, the barrier itself.
Pardon me before we go to the roll call vote. So I just, I just pulled up the Alaska DOT public facing crash portal and searched in this particular window where we are considering this project. And between Concrete and Karluk Sure. That I am presuming appropriately between Concrete and Karluk between 2021 and 2025. There's not a single fatal injury involving a pedestrian.
No, no, no. Suspected serious injury. Again, I mean I, I, I think, I think we're, I think we're making a mistake I think. I think that if we want to do something that improves vehicular safety, then let's call it what it is. And let's not use vulnerable road user funding to do it. If we're going to use vulnerable road user funding, then let's do things that actually make the road better for vulnerable road users. Oh, I take it back. The map updated. There is one in 2022 suspected serious injury involving a pedestrian. It was in March and it was at night and the lighting was dark. So I, I, again, I appreciate that the crash data looks a certain way, but the funding that we're using is for vulnerable road users. And I think that should be factored into this, into all. I mean this should be part of our decision making.
Well the last minute deep dive on the data is one facet, but vulnerable road user funding eligibility is extremely strict, as is our highway safety improvement program. So just encouraging the committee to consider that years have gone into this project. The project was originally nominated in 2021 and at that point, even then it used five years of data up to that point. So we're talking about a project which is facing its need off of the 10 years in 2025. I mean, I'm being sent data that's indicating the similar to the opposite of what you're, you're saying. So I'm just trusting here that our project engineering team, once again, our traffic safety engineers, the HSIP program itself and eligibility is the vulnerable road users should be enough to provide some assurances to the committee that these funds will be wisely spent. So I guess with that, could you please do a roll call vote.
Amendment, it's not passed. So the motion on the floor is to accept the TAC recommendations as written for modifications to the transportation improvement program admin mod number nine. There further discussion on the motion. Okay. Can you please do a roll call vote once again?
Yeah, we have our, I'm Christine Schuette, public Involvement coordinator with AMATS and we have a consultants on line that are gonna give you a, the results of the survey. It's the household travel survey, something AMATS does about every 10 years to try to get user data of the system. So you might have participated it in it last fall. I think it went from September to around Christmas. And if the consultants are online and want to share their screen, this would be a great time.
Awesome, thanks Christine. I'm Bobby Wartman. I am a managing consultant with RSG and I'm joined with my colleague Youme Yai. And we're here to present on the results of the household travel survey. So we'll go into just a little bit of a background on the project. The 2025 year daily journey is a household travel survey to understand travel patterns or current travel patterns in the AMATS region. The previous household travel survey was conducted in 2014 and this is this 10 year or so. Update schedule is typical for, you know, redoing household travel surveys about every 10 to 15 years with AMATS and is also standard for what we see from MPOs in the United States as well. And the results from the household travel survey are used to inform transportation planning efforts. They guide policy investment and prioritization and the metropolitan transportation plan, their key inputs, behavioral inputs into the development of the regional travel demand model.
They're absolutely critical for understanding basically a snapshot of what current travel behavior looks like in the region. Go to the next slide and before we dive into the results of the survey or the project goals, one thing I wanted to talk about is the difference between survey data and passive data. And we get this question a lot, especially in today's day and age where there's a lot of passive mobility data and other data sources out there of, you know, why do household travel survey and what is the role of passive mobility data. And so house travel survey data has really, really rich behavioral depth. So we have a really, a high amount of deep detail but at a smaller sample. And then on passive mobility data we get really broad coverage but really little behavioral data. So we get a lot of spatial and temporal coverage but we don't get the behavioral depth.
So we don't understand the purpose of the trips and the underlying demographics that are in are behind the trips or the modes or how the trips are connected or when people leave. And the, the best way to use these data sources together is to start with the household travel survey data and then use that to build the behavioral foundation of a data program and an MPO and then use passive data to fill in the spatial and temporal gaps that the survey datas are are light on, for example, external trip making long distance flows and then to help fill in the origin destination cells from the surveys. You go to the next slide.
So the goal of the household travel survey was to collect representative travel behavior, support the regional travel demand model and other planning tools, understand differences in travel and travel in the region and inform future transportation planning. And the goal of the survey was to target 1,325 households. We saw a little bit short at 1,163 but achieved about 88% of the goal. Go to the next slide. All right. So the methodology that we use primarily relied on a recruitment effort using three different survey modes. And we collected in September to December of 2025, we included six languages, English, Spanish, Hmong, Tagalog, Korean and Samoan. It was an address based sample and was randomly selected. And then we have three survey modes and what that means is that participants were allowed to use a smartphone application, a web browser or the call center. And if you chose to elect or to do the smartphone application, we collected seven days of travel data. The smartphone application would basically monitor your movements and, and basically, you know, ping you when you made a trip to update the, the survey or or to take your survey through your data collection period. We go to the next slide.
And so the household travel survey is representative in within the region. We then have four different sampling geographies and those four general sampling geographies are the general population, which is comp compromised of B wraps that do not qualify for zero vehicle oversampling strata. We have a zero zero vehicle oversampling strata, which is compromise of Bach groups that we use. 50% of households that identify as a identifies as zero vehicle ownership. So that means that the household does not have a vehicle. And then we have hard to reach samples which are com compromised of block groups in the sampling frame that meet any of the following criteria, which is at least 35% of the households are earning less than 50,000 per year and would be classified as low income or at least 60% of the households identified as Hispanic black, indigenous or persons of color. And then we also had a military sampling strata, which is compromised around the population around JBER and that included about 3,269 addresses within JBER itself and is not indicative of the military barracks. So it's a basically an add-on to the a BS sample from there. And then I'll turn it over to Youme to talk about key findings.
Sure. Thank you Bobby. Hello, my name is Youme Yai, a senior consultant at RSG and I worked along with Bobby on the household travel survey. I'll walk us through a few highlights from the survey results. So we collected responses from 1,163 households representing more than 2300 persons and new data collection methods have helped capture more complete travel patterns with fewer overall survey participants. So while the 1,163 count of households and 2,305 persons are roughly one third of the numbers collected back in 2014, the number of person diaries and travel day trips in 2025 are one half to two thirds of the 2014 study. So it's largely due to the data collection improvements that were made since 2014 that we're able to achieve these counts. So we'll be providing 2014 data as comparison to 2025 results in the next few slides. I wanna point out that there are a few key considerations as we make these comparisons.
There were several mythological changes since the study was last conducted in 2014. In 2025, we collected multi-day travel surveys, which was supported by GPS enabled instruments and this allowed for passive location based data collection while it's in 2014. The study was primarily conducted as a single day travel travel diary. This is based all on recall. So this meant that in 2025 we had a better representation of short discretionary and non-mandatory trips since those were collected via the smartphone app. So as a result, the changes we see in travel behavior from 2014 to 2025 may reflect both real changes in how people have traveled, but may also be due to some of the improved way that we collect and report travel. So just wanna keep those in mind as we examine the results.
We had participation across all age groups, which helped to make sure that the results represent the AMATS region. So compared to 2014 last year there were fewer participants in the 45 to 64 age range, slightly higher in the oldest age groups. Those were age 65 and older. This slide shows the, the trip rates or the average number of weekday trips taken on a Tuesday through Thursday by amass residents. So we can see on a typical with weekday people made about 4.5 trips per day. The 2025 results were represented here in the golden bars 2014 in the blue bars. The larger households make more trips and adults traveled more than children under age 18. And on average there were more than, there were more trips made in 2025 than there were 11 years ago.
This slide shows the breakdown of how people ported travel on a typical weekday. So Tuesday, Thursday by age group we see that most trips nearly 90% are made by car split evenly by high occupancy and single occupancy vehicles. The next highest reported travel mode was walk followed by bus and school bus. While these trip mode distributions were similar across adults age groups, so those were between 18 and 64. In those 65 and older travel by high occupancy vehicle dominated trip mode among children under age 18, they also made more trips by school bus. Now the most common reasons for travel or trip purpose were to travel home. They would go to work along with escort and shopping. So the higher rates of escort we see here escort, which means accompanying others. So think a parent who's dropping off a child at school or an afterschool activity. This is likely due to some of the changes in data collection method compared to 2014 and went over a few slides ago.
The survey also asks some additional travel related behaviors and considerations that could influence travel such as telework over a quarter of residents that they telework at least once a week. Nearly 12% worked fully and remotely and one in five or 20% reported that they were not employed nor seeking work. So this includes those who may be retirees, students, and or caregivers. The majority, 70% were employed now nearly 40% of households received deliveries of goods or services on a typical weekday. Also, about one third of residents have considered purchasing an electric vehicle with 10% of them likely to purchase one in the next few years.
The survey also included questions to capture residents input on safety and budget priorities. So when asked about their Top budget priorities, a vast majority, about 80.7% of residents selected fixing and maintaining what we already have as a top transportation budget priority. Other top priorities selected by one third to one half of the population were related to walk bike lane. Public transit access walk and bike lane access were a higher priority among adults age 1864 than adults age 65 and older. While there are no difference by age for a public transit access and when deciding whether to walk, bike or use transit on their daily travel, residents identify distance to the destination, winter maintenance and the temperature or weather as a top three. Safety considerations. And all these were reflected by about two thirds of the AMATS population. So thank you for your time today. We're happy to take any questions.
I can speak to how we selected our languages, Christine Schuette with AMATS, the five languages, when we do our title six renewal, we look at safe harbor. I don't know if it's a legal thing anymore, but it's just basically picking up the languages that are at least 5% of the population or over a thousand individuals. And those are the languages that we are supposed to try to have things already translated in. None of the Alaska native languages have ever hit that threshold and that's probably due to how languages are categorized in that data. They can't see at a fine, you know, the types of languages are grouped in one in different categories. I know that public transit has done some of their own surveys and they have added Yupik to that list and I think we'll probably move in that direction. But at the time of this language that were identified for translation. I do not know if we have the results of who actually took the surveys in the different language, but that'll be something that's part of the final reporting.
And and it pertains, it pertains to, it pertains to the, the way that we do public process, which I think is important for us to, to keep in mind. So returning to, returning to the conversation about the Fifth Avenue project, I think it, it, it's, it's really important to recognize that the options that we present to the public influence the information that we get back. And when the public is not presented with a wide array of options, when they have limited options, then we get data. It doesn't actually help us understand what the public wants. And so when we host open houses and we go to community council, the option that we offer is basically a selection of different types of walls, of pedestrian barriers. And no barrier is not an option offered to the public. Then what we get is a selected wall. And the only question that is asked of the public is what is the aesthetic of the wall that we are going to build you? Would you like an ugly wall, a less ugly wall or a less, less ugly wall? That's not real public engagement in my opinion. That's a foregone conclusion that masquerading is public process. And I don't think we should accept that as normal.
I don't think that's how we ought to do outreach. And so were, were conversations had on this project with community councils, was there an open house? Yes. Was a no barrier option offered? No. Was anything other than a median barrier offered also? No. So of course what the public chose is a median barrier because that's all we gave them and I don't think that's acceptable. That's all I have to say about that.
Oh, just a brief one about the Safer Seward Highway. There is an open house meeting speaking of engagement and improvements that we strive to make in public engagement. So please note for your calendars, it's September 22nd is an in-person meeting and it'll be followed by September 23rd for a virtual meeting and then there'll be 30 days beyond that for public comment. So please, yeah, mark those. And if interested, if you attend, and I believe that's just a few days after our next committee meeting, so I wanted to mention it here. So, so how about some public comments? Any general comment from the public? See, have a couple and of first here.
Yeah, Mackenzie Pope from the office of Senator Loki Tobin. We submitted comments whenever we were down in the legislative session, whenever the, I didn't wanna speak to the amendment for the fifth Avenue barrier wall, but I did wanna say that we heard from constituents from the moment that that open house happened to now, we submitted our own office comments just supporting what member Baldwin Day spoke to. That constituents were really frustrated that when they went to that open house, the only options they were given were to vote for what kind of wall. And they weren't given the option to say, this is the HSIP intervention that we would like to see in this corridor. Or this is the prioritization that we would like to see this money going towards. Especially since this is coming from the vulnerable road user talk. And that makes our job a lot harder.
As you know, the, the oversight body and the constituent engagement person in Senator Tobin's office, it makes it harder when we're asking constituents to submit comments to these plans. It makes it harder when we're telling constituents that their voice matters on these issues because they're not seeing that their voice is being heard at decision making points. They're feeling like whenever they show up that these motions are foregone conclusions and that weakens public trust and leads to public disenfranchisement about these roads that they're walking on, driving on, biking on every day. And so that doesn't build a very engaged community process because they said, oh, well I gave public comment and the only thing I was allowed to do was say wall. And so, you know, that makes my job harder when I'm begging constituents to send in comments. And so I just, and I've heard project workers say that, you know, getting public comment is a struggle and I just want to connect those two dots that when you give constituents work on conclusions, they're, they're gonna stop engaging with the process. And so, you know, it's, it's our job to make these decisions sensible and reasonable and responsibly. And I think the public gets a sense of, of how these decisions are made and it's our responsibility to make them feel like they, that we are elected and representing them and want to hear their voice. So thank you.
Yeah. Justice Terry, I'd just like to echo some of what MacKenzie said as well. Just the public engagement process. It's hard to get to these things, it's hard to attend these things. I've come straight from work to be here and I know I'm gonna understand that you can only count the hands that are in the room on any specific day when it comes to open houses, when it comes to community councils and one or two. But reality is with the fifth and sixth Avenue that that's more than just a couple of those community councils that will see that impact the entire city bears a little bit of that impact, this one decision that's being made. It seemed like there's a little bit of emphasis put just on those community councils when that quarter serves more than just those community councils. Appreciate earlier with the, I was arrived a little bit late with the fifth and sixth Avenue, that being seen as a area of improvement for a life outside of the vehicle for pedestrians.
It does seem to member Baldwin Day's comments too, like we had that some cost cost fallacy with this barrier that we're gonna put up between concrete and car luck. And when that whole corridor is gonna look different and potentially five, 10 years time, potentially longer, like we may be just wasted the equivalence of $2 million there. And that's to speak to a little bit of the engagement with constituents. It feels like some of my money is not being used appropriately or to serve my needs, especially when it's supposed to come from vulnerable road road users from the highway safety improvement projects. Thank you.
Yeah, so Alex Dobson, executive director by Anchorage. Great comment so far. I won't retread background, but I do want to highlight updates to the seaward highway widening project. Members of the policy committee have, I believe already received this information, but I'll refresh your memories. We recently had a public records request that resulted in a trope of documents, internal emails and project notes from that Seward highway widening project that indicated that while the project is currently in the environmental assessment phase as required for a federally funded project and the project team has not finished even reviewing the first round of public comments, has not issued a revision to the draft environmental assessment, it is actually already going ahead and building out or getting ready to build out using state funds. A four lane section of that highway. So it is actually taking a project, while we are being told that this is still in the public review process, we still have option opportunities for public input that DOT is actually turning around and going ahead and building it anyway.
And what that is going to have the effect of doing is locking in that four lane design, that extreme widening in defiance of what the public is telling the state very clearly, which is that that is extremely environmentally damaging and it is not going to make the road safer. So I'm glad that we finally have a date set for this. Originally, I believe the commissioner promised us that that project, the project update meeting was going to happen the week of August 10th. So we're a little behind schedule there. I'm happy that it is happening, but I sincerely hope that we're going to see some real commitment to changing the design based on the facts of the project as published in the draft ea and based on the feedback that the public has given. Because as recently as last week I was on talk of Alaska radio program alongside Catherine Wood who is the communications lead on this project.
And she was swearing up and down that it's not done yet. There's gonna be more opportunities for public comment. It's not locked in at the four lane, we're looking at everything. But what we're seeing from those internal documents that have not been, you know, this hasn't been disclosed anywhere else that I'm aware of is that DOT is actually moving forward, spending a different pot of state funding to go ahead and lock this design in anyway, deia of the will of the people. So I sincerely hope that we're gonna see something different at this September meeting and I'm asking DOT to be upfront with us, to be honest with us, to be honest with the public, what we've experienced so far is absolutely unacceptable. This is a serious breach of public trust and we need an apology and we need, we need this to be better moving forward. Thank you.
Yeah. Hi. Thank you. Lindsay Hajduk here and I wanna echo some of the comments that were made just about public process and engagement. I'm really fortunate to be able to attend many of these meetings with my day job, but I also have been a volunteer in the community doing this work for 15 plus years. And you know, I could go back in time and tell you about the transit fair where I first heard about the pedestrian barrier on fifth Avenue after they built the one in my neighborhood on Minnesota and on and on. But that doesn't really matter. I wanna just elevate what I care about to this committee and that safety in our community. We are still in a crisis after having, you know, two years of 15 plus pedestrians and bicyclists killed on our road and then 15 more people in vehicles. We just had a young person in Eagle River killed while biking on the sidewalk.
It seems like they were doing exactly what they should be doing. And we're continuing to build a system of roads in our community that are unsafe and destroying lives. It's still a crisis and it's up to you all to have priorities to make a difference and make an impact. Be, be nimble, pivot. I know it's a complicated and bureaucratic process for good reason, but we're not doing a good job. We're failing our community and we're failing the future for our neighborhoods. So I'm really disappointed in the decision to continue business as usual, to put barriers and make it harder to walk and access our community. And I really urge you all to do better. Thanks.
I have something, it's not related to everything that we've been talking about, I apologize, but I do want to introduce a new individual at AMATS. We have a new staff member. I want to have some little happiness and that's all that we've been talking about. So Mook here, Mook Puttong is joining us at AMATS. She was with us previously in the planning department, but we have been fortunate enough to steal her over to AMATS as our new senior account. So you'll see Mook attending more meetings and she'll be helping us with a lot of the accounting side behind the scene. Just giving some more effort and we're really, really fortunate to have her back and really appreciate it. So thank you both.
Okay. We have a couple important dates just to highlight. The next TAC meeting is September 3rd. Next policy committee meeting is September 17th and the state steward highway meeting is September 22nd and 23rd to keep the conversation going. Okay with that, yeah, thanks everyone for excellent meetings. So many people attending, this is why we have these meetings to be able to hear this feedback and we do take everything that we do here at the department at least to to heart. So thanks to everybody And from that, let's close a meeting at 3:02 PM
This is hidden text that lets us know when google translate runs.