adoption dra ft - matanuska-susitna borough, alaska · palme wasill rivate airstr orough 203........
TRANSCRIPT
M
Long
Matanu
g Range
uska‐S
e Tran
ADO
Susitna
sporta
Ap
OPTION
Aug
Borou
ation Pl
ppendix
N DRA
gust 20
ugh
lan
x A
AFT
017
Matanuska‐Susitna Borough 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan: Technical Appendix
This page intentionally left blank.
Table o
Chapter
Chapter
H
A
R
H
E
E
La
R
Chapter
R
A
F
N
Sy
Sa
B
T
A
Matanuska‐
f Contents
1 Introductio
2 Populatio
Historic Popu
Age ..............
ace .............
Housing Units
conomic Tre
mployment
Earnin
abor Force .
egistered Ve
3 Existing Co
oadway Syst
Annual Avera
unctional Cla
National High
ystem Perfo
afety ..........
Safety
ridge Condit
DOT&
ransit System
MASC
Valley
Sunsh
Chicka
Other
Transi
Inter‐
Active Transp
‐Susitna Bor
s
on ..............
n and Econo
ulation Trend
...................
...................
s and House
ends ............
and Earning
ngs by Place
...................
ehicles ........
onditions ....
tem ............
age Daily Tra
assification
hway System
ormance ......
...................
y Corridors .
tions ...........
&PF’s 2013 B
m ................
COT .............
y Mover ......
hine Transit .
aloon Area T
r transit prov
it Consolidat
Region Bus .
portation Sys
rough 2035 L
....................
omics ...........
ds.................
....................
....................
ehold Income
....................
gs .................
of Work .....
....................
....................
....................
....................
affic ..............
....................
m ..................
....................
....................
....................
....................
ridge Repor
....................
....................
....................
....................
Transit .........
viders ..........
tion .............
....................
stem ............
Long Range T
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
e ..................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
t ..................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
Transportat
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
tion Plan: Te
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
chnical Appe
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
endix
i
...... 3
...... 7
...... 8
...... 9
.... 10
.... 11
.... 11
.... 12
.... 12
.... 13
.... 14
.... 19
.... 19
.... 20
.... 21
.... 24
.... 24
.... 26
.... 26
.... 27
.... 28
.... 28
.... 30
.... 31
.... 31
.... 31
.... 31
.... 32
.... 32
.... 33
Matanus
ii
F
Chapter 4
O
Chapter
2
M
F
Sa
R
S
M
Lo
Il
Chapter
Id
Ev
R
Chapter
Ex
M
P
ska‐Susitna B
reight .........
4 Financial C
Operations a
5 Roadway R
014 Travel M
Model Popula
uture Roadw
afety Conce
oadway Rec
hort Term (2
Medium Term
ong Term (2
lustrative Pr
6 Transporta
dentification
valuation ...
ecommenda
7 Air Transp
xisting Air Tr
Public
Big La
Goose
Lake L
Sheep
Skwen
Summ
Talkee
Willow
Municipal Air
Palme
Wasill
rivate Airstr
Borough 203
...................
Constraints .
nd Maintena
Recommend
Model Backg
ation and Em
way System
rns .............
commendati
2016–2019)
m (2020–202
023–2035) .
rojects ........
ation Improv
n of Alternat
...................
ations .........
ortation .....
ransportatio
c Airports un
ke Airport ..
e Bay Airpor
Louise Airpo
p Mountain A
ntna Airport
mit Airport ..
etna Airport
w Airport ....
rports .........
er Airport ....
la Airport ...
ips ..............
35 Long Rang
....................
....................
ance ............
dations ........
ground .........
mployment ..
Performanc
....................
ons .............
....................
25) ...............
....................
....................
vement Stra
ives to Road
....................
....................
....................
on Facilities..
nder DOT&P
....................
t ..................
rt ................
Airport ........
t ...................
....................
...................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
ge Transport
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
e .................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
tegies .........
dway Improv
....................
....................
....................
....................
F Jurisdictio
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
tation Plan:
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
vements ......
....................
....................
....................
....................
n .................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
Technical A
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
ppendix
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
.... 34
.... 38
.... 44
.... 48
.... 48
.... 49
.... 55
.... 58
.... 60
.... 61
.... 67
.... 72
.... 73
.... 78
.... 78
.... 79
.... 79
.... 82
.... 82
.... 84
.... 84
.... 85
.... 85
.... 85
.... 86
.... 86
.... 87
.... 87
.... 88
.... 88
.... 89
.... 90
C
M
O
Chapter 8
Ex
P
R
C
R
Chapter 9
Ex
R
Chapter
E
Matanuska‐
ontrolled an
MSB Regiona
Other Recom
Propo
Impro
Seapla
Capita
8 Rail Transp
xisting Cond
lanned Impr
Port M
Glenn
South
ailroad‐High
Feder
ommuter Ra
ecommenda
Comm
Reloca
Comp
9 Marine an
xisting Cond
Port M
Rivers
ecommenda
Port D
Ongoi
10 Environm
nvironment
Archa
Wetla
Flood
Threa
‐Susitna Bor
nd Reserved
l Aviation Sy
mmendations
osed Precisio
oved Airport
ane Bases ...
al Funding ..
portation ....
ditions .........
rovements ..
MacKenzie R
n Highway M
Wasilla Rai
hway Grade
ral Railroad A
ail ...............
ations .........
muter Rail ...
ate Wasilla T
pletion of the
d Waterbor
ditions .........
MacKenzie ..
s and Lakes .
ations .........
Developmen
ing Operatio
mental Analy
al Screening
eological an
ands and Wa
plains .........
tened and E
rough 2035 L
Airspace .....
ystem Plan R
s ...................
on Instrumen
s ..................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
Rail Extension
MP 34–42 Imp
l Line Reloca
Crossings ....
Administrati
....................
....................
....................
Train Station
e Port MacK
ne Transpor
....................
....................
....................
....................
t ..................
on and Main
ysis ...............
g/Considerat
nd Historic R
aters of the U
....................
Endangered
Long Range T
....................
Recommend
....................
nt Approach
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
n .................
provements
ation ............
....................
on Web Acc
....................
....................
....................
n ..................
enzie Rail Ex
rtation .........
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
tenance ......
....................
tions ............
esources .....
U.S. .............
....................
Species .......
Transportat
....................
dations .........
....................
h to Wasilla A
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
s ...................
....................
....................
cident Predic
....................
....................
....................
....................
xtension ......
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
tion Plan: Te
....................
....................
....................
Airport ........
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
ction System
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
chnical Appe
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
m ..................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
endix
iii
.... 90
.... 91
.... 92
.... 92
.... 93
.... 93
.... 93
.... 96
.... 96
.... 97
.... 97
.... 97
.. 100
.. 100
.. 101
.. 104
.. 106
.. 106
.. 106
.. 106
.. 110
.. 110
.. 110
.. 112
.. 112
.. 112
.. 112
.. 116
.. 118
.. 118
.. 118
.. 118
.. 118
Matanus
iv
List of T
Table 1. M
Table 2. M
Table 3. N
Table 4. M
Table 5. M
Table 6. M
Table 7. F
Table 8. S
Table 9. S
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Table 14
Table 15
Table 16
Table 17
List of F
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Figure 10
Figure 11
ska‐Susitna B
Sectio
Enviro
Tables
MSB Demog
MSB Racial C
Number of W
MSB Home‐t
MSB Travel T
MSB Functio
Fatalities, 20
Structurally
Safety Indica
. DOT&PF Sh
. MSB Short‐
. DOT&PF M
. MSB Mediu
. DOT&PF Lo
. MSB Long‐t
. MSB Public
. WBAPS Acc
Figures
MSB Popula
MSB Popula
Individuals
MSB Popula
Where MSB
Number of
Annual Ave
MSB Functi
Summary o
0. MSB Existi
1. MSB Traff
Borough 203
on 4(f) and S
onmental Ju
graphic Data
Composition
Workers by I
to‐Work Tra
Time to Wor
onally Classif
011‐2015 ....
Deficient an
ators ...........
hort‐term Ro
‐term Roadw
Medium‐term
um‐term Ro
ong‐Term Ro
term Roadw
c Airports ....
cident Predi
ation Trends
ation by Age
65 Years of
ation Percen
B Residents W
Registered V
erage Daily T
onal Classifi
of Levels of S
ing Level of
ic Safety Cor
35 Long Rang
ection 6(f) R
stice ............
, 1990, 2000
n – 1990, 200
Industry Res
avel Patterns
rk, 1990, 200
fied Roadwa
....................
nd Functiona
....................
oadway Proj
way Projects
m Roadway P
adway Proje
oadway Proje
way Projects .
....................
cation Value
s, 1960‐2015
e Group, 201
Age and Old
ntage by Rac
Work, 2010 .
Vehicles in t
Traffic, 2015 .
cation .........
Service .........
Service ........
rridors .........
ge Transport
Resources ....
....................
0, 2010, and
00, 2010, an
siding in the
s, 1990, 2000
00, and 2012
ays ...............
....................
ally Obsolete
....................
ects in the M
s ...................
Projects in th
ects ..............
ects .............
....................
....................
es .................
5 ..................
15 ................
der ...............
ce, 2014 .......
....................
he MSB, 198
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
tation Plan:
....................
....................
2014 ..........
nd 2014 .......
MSB, 2012 .
0, 2005, and
2 .................
....................
....................
e Bridges in t
....................
MSB .............
....................
he MSB ........
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
80–2015 ......
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
Technical A
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
d 2012 .........
....................
....................
....................
the MSB, 20
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
ppendix
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
015 ...............
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
.. 119
.. 119
...... 8
.... 10
.... 12
.... 14
.... 14
.... 22
.... 26
.... 28
.... 59
.... 62
.... 64
.... 68
.... 71
.... 72
.... 73
.... 83
.. 102
...... 8
...... 9
.... 10
.... 11
.... 13
.... 15
.... 20
.... 23
.... 24
.... 25
.... 27
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 19
Figure 20
Figure 21
Figure 22
Figure 23
Figure 24
Figure 25
Figure 26
Figure 27
Figure 28
Figure 29
Figure 30
Figure 31
Figure 32
Figure 33
Figure 34
Figure 35
Figure 36
Figure 37
Figure 38
Attachm
Attachm
Matanuska‐
2. Existing Tr
3. MSB Publi
4. MASCOT R
5. Valley Mo
6. Distributio
7. MSB Sepa
8. Annual Tra
9. Projection
0. Modeling
1. Household
2. Employme
3. Household
4. Employme
5. MSB Futur
6. Short‐term
7. Medium‐ a
8. Strategy Id
9. Public Airp
0. Existing AR
1. Port MacK
2. Potential I
3. South Was
4. Potential C
5. Port MacK
6. Environme
7. Minority P
8. Low Incom
ments
ment A: Tra
‐Susitna Bor
ransit Service
c Transporta
Ridership, 20
ver Ridershi
on of Share‐A
rated Bicycle
ansportation
n of Future R
Process Sum
d Distributio
ent Distribut
d Distributio
ent Distribut
re 2035 Leve
m Roadway R
and Long‐te
dentification
ports in the
RRC Facilitie
Kenzie Rail Ex
Improvemen
silla Rail Line
Commuter R
Kenzie .........
entally Sensi
Populations
me Populatio
ansportatio
rough 2035 L
e .................
ation Service
010‐2015 .....
p, 2010‐201
A‐Ride Trips
e and Pedes
n Funding by
Roadway Rev
mmary .........
on by TAZ, 20
tion by TAZ,
on by TAZ, 20
tion by TAZ,
el of Service
Recommend
rm Roadway
n and Evalua
MSB ............
s .................
xtension .....
nts to Reduc
e Relocation
Rail System ..
....................
itive Areas ..
....................
ons ...............
on Modeli
Long Range T
....................
es Used, 201
....................
15 .................
by Location
strian Trails ..
y Source, 20
venue, 2016
....................
010 ..............
2010 ...........
035 ..............
2035 ...........
...................
dations ........
y Recommen
tion Process
....................
....................
....................
ce Blocked C
n ...................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
ng Docum
Transportat
....................
14 ................
....................
....................
n ..................
....................
01‐2013 ......
‐2035 ..........
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
ndations ......
s ..................
....................
....................
....................
Crossings in P
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
entation
tion Plan: Te
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
Palmer .........
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
chnical Appe
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
endix
v
.... 29
.... 30
.... 30
.... 31
.... 32
.... 34
.... 39
.... 44
.... 49
.... 50
.... 51
.... 53
.... 54
.... 56
.... 66
.... 70
.... 79
.... 83
.... 96
.... 97
.... 99
.. 100
.. 105
.. 111
.. 117
.. 121
.. 122
Matanus
vi
Abbrev
AAB AADT AASP ACS AMATS AMP APV ARRC CATS CMAQ DHHS DOL&WDDOT DOT&PF FAA FAST ActFASTLAN
FEMA FHWA FNSB FTA FY HSIP IFR JBER KPB LOS LRTP MAP‐21 MASCOTMLLW MOA MP MPO MSB NBI NHPP NHS NPIAS NSB
ska‐Susitna B
iations
D
NE
T
Borough 203
AviatioAnnuaAlaskaAmeriAnchoAirporAccideAlaskaChickaCongeDepartDepartU.S. DeAlaskaFederaFixing FosterTerm AFederaFederaFairbaFederaFiscal YHighwInstrumJoint BKenai Level oLong RMovinMat‐SMean MunicMilepoMetroMatanNationNationNationNationNorth
35 Long Rang
on Advisory al Average Da Aviation Sycan Commuorage Metroprt Master Plaent Predictioa Railroad Coaloon Area Testion Mitigatment of Hetment of Labepartment oa Departmenal Aviation AAmerica's Sring AdvanceAchievemenal Emergencal Highway Anks North Stal Transit AdYear
way Safety Imment Flight Base ElmendPeninsula Boof Service Range Transpng Ahead foru CommunitLower Low Wcipality of Anost opolitan Plannuska‐Susitnnal Bridge Innal Highway nal Highway nal Plan of InSlope Borou
ge Transport
Board aily Traffic ystem Plan nity Surveypolitan Areaan on Value orporation Transit Systeation/Air Quaealth and Hubor & Workfof Transportnt of TranspoAdministratiourface Transements in Shnt of Nationacy ManagemAdministratiotar Boroughdministration
mprovementRules dorf‐Richardsorough
portation Plar Progress in ty Transit Water nchorage
nning Organia Borough ventory PerformancSystem ntegrated Aiugh
tation Plan:
a Transporta
m ality man Serviceforce Develotation ortation andon sportation Ahipping and Tal Efficienciement Agencyon n
Plan
son
an the 21st Cen
ization
ce Program
rport System
Technical A
tion Solutio
es opment
d Public Facil
Act Transportates
ntury Act
ms
ppendix
ns
lities
ion for the LLong‐
PAPI PPP QCEW RASP RHE RMC RSA RTP SHPO STIP STBGP TA TAC TAZ TDM TSM UZA VASI VFR VHT VMT VPD VOR WBAPS
Matanuska‐
‐Susitna Bor
PrecisiPublic‐QuarteRegionRail HaRegionRoad SRecreaAlaskaStatewSurfacTranspTechnTrafficTranspTranspUrbanVisual Visual VehiclVehiclVehiclVHF OWeb B
rough 2035 L
ion Approac‐Private Parterly Census onal Aviation azard Eliminnal Transit MService Areaational Trailsa State Histowide Transpoce Transportportation Altical Advisoryc Analysis Zoportation Deportation Sysized Area Approach SFlight Rulese Hours Trave Miles Traves per Day mni‐directioBased Accide
Long Range T
ch Path Indictnership of EmploymSystem Planation Progra
Maintenance s Program ric Preservaortation Impation Block Gternatives y Committeene emand Manastem Manag
lope Indicat veled veled
onal Radio Rent Predictio
Transportat
cator
ment and Wan am e Center
tion Officerprovement PGroup Progr
e
agement gement
tor
ange on System
tion Plan: Te
ges
Program ram
chnical Appeendix
vii
Matanus
viii
ska‐Susitna BBorough 203
T
35 Long Rang
This page int
ge Transport
tentionally le
tation Plan:
eft blank.
Technical A
ppendix
InCh
ntrodhaptduct
er 1tion
1
1 n
Matanus
2
ska‐Susitna B
Borough 203
T
35 Long Rang
This page int
ge Transport
tentionally le
tation Plan:
eft blank.
Technical A
ppendix
ChaptThis tech
2035 Lon
compone
environm
LRTP doc
This docu
Chap
Chap
Chap
Chap
Chap
Chap
Chap
Chap
Chap
Chap
Matanuska‐
er 1 Intrhnical appen
ng Range Tra
ents of the p
mental consi
cument avail
ument includ
ter 1 – Intro
ter 2 – Popu
ter 3 – Exist
ter 4 – Finan
ter 5 – Road
ter 6 – Tran
ter 7 – Air T
ter 8 – Rail T
ter 9 – Mari
ter 10 – Env
‐Susitna Bor
roductiondix is a com
ansportation
plan includin
derations. F
lable under
des the follo
oduction
ulation and E
ing Conditio
ncial Constra
dway Recom
sportation Im
ransportatio
Transportati
ne and Wat
vironmental
rough 2035 L
n panion docu
n Plan (LRTP)
g demograp
or informati
a separate c
owing chapte
Economics
ons
aints
mmendations
mprovemen
on
ion
erborne Tra
Analysis
Long Range T
ument to the
). This appen
phic data, ro
ion of the LR
cover.
ers:
s
nt Strategies
nsportation
Transportat
e Matanuska
ndix provide
adway, rail,
RTP recomm
tion Plan: Te
a‐Susitna Bo
es additional
aviation, ma
mendations, p
chnical Appe
orough (MSB
detail abou
arine, and
please see th
endix
3
B)
ut
he
Matanus
4
ska‐Susitna B
Borough 203
T
35 Long Rang
This page int
ge Transport
tentionally le
tation Plan:
eft blank.
Technical A
ppendix
P
Popuulat
ion andCh
d Ecohaptonom
ter 2mics
5
2s
Matanus
6
ska‐Susitna B
Borough 203
35 Long Rang
This page i
ge Transport
intentionally
tation Plan:
y left blank.
Technical A
ppendix
Matanus
ChaptEconoIt is impo
of an are
its econo
patterns
economy
on transp
patterns.
and recre
does high
needs. So
others (e
and food
facilities)
characte
It is also
planning
having fa
meeting.
This chap
it best re
ska‐Susitna B
er 2 Popmics ortant to und
ea's populati
omy when lo
and trends.
y of a region
portation, cr
. More peop
eational acti
her income l
ome industr
e.g., hotels a
d service) are
) have very l
ristics is an i
important to
process. Fo
amily friendl
.
pter is based
eflects existin
Borough 203
pulation a
derstand the
on and the s
ooking at tra
The popula
have an im
reating traffi
ple, jobs, and
vity generat
levels. Differ
ies (e.g., con
nd restaura
e associated
ow trip gene
important co
o understan
r example, if
y outreach a
d on data fro
ng condition
35 Long Rang
and
e compositio
structure of
nsportation
tion and
mense impa
ic and travel
d commercia
te traffic as
rent types o
nstruction) n
nts) need ea
with a high
eration rates
onsideration
d demograp
f a commun
activities ma
om a variety
ns but the ye
ge Transport
on
act
l
al
f industries
need to be a
asy access an
number of t
s. As result,
n in understa
phics in orde
ity has a hig
ay get more
of sources.
ear reported
Knik‐commalongArm, Knik‐percepopuMSB’Wasil
tation Plan:
also have di
ble to trans
nd high visib
trips, while o
understandi
anding trave
er to effectiv
gh percentag
participation
The most re
varies by da
Fairview ismunity in tg the northheading toFairview gent in the llation of 1s two largella, combin
Technical A
fferent tran
port heavy l
bility. Some j
others (e.g.,
ing social an
el behavior.
vely solicit in
ge of familie
n than a trad
ecent data w
ata set.
s the fasteshe MSB. Ithwest shoroward Porrew by moast decade14,923 is grest cities, Pned.
ppendix
sportation
oads, while
jobs (e.g., re
storage
nd economic
put into the
s with childr
ditional pub
was used bec
st growingt is locatedre of Knik t MacKenzore than 10e. Its 2010 reater thanPalmer and
7
etail
c
e
ren,
lic
cause
g d
zie. 00
n d
8
HistoricThe MSB
growing
decades
source n
populatio
Alaska De
Workforc
The MSB
square m
to West V
live in th
in a corri
of Willow
Sutton, o
Approxim
the popu
demogra
Table 1.
Total houAverage nper houseAverage nper familyMale resiFemale reStudents
1 DOL&WDinternet at
Matanuska‐
c PopulatiB has been A
region for th
(see Figure
ot found.) a
on of 100,17
epartment o
ce Developm
B is approxim
miles, making
Virginia. Mo
e southern p
dor betwee
w, on the Par
on the Glenn
mately 17.6 p
ulation lives
aphics.
MSB Demog
useholds number of peehold number of pey dents esidents enrolled in M
D. 2016. 2015 Pt http://live.lab
‐Susitna Bor
on Trendslaska's faste
he last three
1Error! Refe
nd has a 201
78 according
of Labor and
ment (DOL&W
mately 24,68
g it similar in
ost of its resi
portion of th
n the comm
rks Highway
n Highway. T
percent of th
in unincorpo
graphic Data
ersons
ersons
2019
MSB
Population Estiborstats.alaska
rough 2035 L
s est
e
erence
15
g to the
WD).1
2
n size
dents
he MSB
unities
y, and
There are thr
he MSB pop
orated areas
a, 1990, 200
1990 13,394
2.92
3.37
0,605 (51.9%)9,078 (48.1%)
8,851 1
imates by Boroa.gov/pop/inde
Fi
So
Long Range T
ree cities in t
ulation lives
s. Table 1 de
00, 2010, and
20020,5
2.8
3.2
) 30,831 (5) 28,491 (4
12,51
ough, Census Aex.cfm
igure 1. MSB
ource: Departmen
Transportat
the MSB: W
s in one of th
epicts an ove
d 2014
00 556
84
29
51.9%) 4648.1%) 4213 1
Area, and Econ
B Population
nt of Labor and Wo
tion Plan: Te
asilla, Palme
hese three c
erview of the
2010 31,824
2.84
3.23
6,040 (51.7%)2,955 (48.3%)16,8692
omic Region. A
n Trends, 19
orkforce Developm
chnical Appe
er, and Hous
ities. The re
e MSB’s
20131,1
2.9
3.4
) 51,799 (5) 48,379 (4
18,36
Available on th
960‐2015
ment, 2015
endix
ston.
st of
14 104
96
47
51.7%) 48.3%) 642
he
Matanus
1 2007 LRTP
2 Alaska DepaSources: U.S.
Age In 2015, t
populatio
Figure 2.
The age g
Figure 3)
2 Alaska DeEnrollmenthttps://ed3 Alaska DeEnrollmenthttps://ed
ska‐Susitna B
artment of EducatiCensus, 2007 LRT
the biggest a
on (see Figu
MSB Popul
group with t
. The numbe
epartment of E
t as of Octoberucation.alaskaepartment of Et as of Octoberucation.alaska
Borough 203
ion and Early DeveTP, DOL&WD, and
age group w
re 2). This ag
ation by Age
the biggest c
er of individ
Education and
r 1, 2010, FY20.gov/stats/DistEducation and r 1, 2015, FY20.gov/stats/Dist
35 Long Rang
elopment, AssessmAlaska Departmen
was 20 to 44‐
ge group gre
e Group, 20
change since
uals in this a
Early Develop
011. Available otrictEnrollmenEarly Developm016. Available otrictEnrollmen
ge Transport
ment and Accountnt of Education an
‐year‐olds w
ew by 3,329
15
e 2000 was in
age group ha
ment, Assessm
on the internet/2011Districtment, Assessmon the internet/2016District
tation Plan:
ability 2 3
nd Early Developm
with 32.0 per
between 20
ndividuals 6
as almost tri
ment and Accou
t at Enrollment.pd
ment and Accout at Enrollment.pd
Technical A
ment, Assessment a
rcent (32,105
010 and 201
65 years and
pled since 2
untability. 201
df untability. 201
df
ppendix
and Accountability
5) of the MS
5.
older (see
2000.
11. District
6. District
9
y
SB
10
Figure 3.
Race Table 2 a
less racia
Table 2.
Race – WRace – PeRace – AmNative AloRace – BlaAlone Race – AsRace – NaPacific IslRace – Coraces or sSource: U.S. C
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
Matanuska‐
Individuals
and Figure 4
ally diverse t
MSB Racial
hite alone ercentage Nomerican Indiaone ack or African
sian Alone ative Hawaiiaander Alone ombination osome other raCensus
3,500
2000
‐Susitna Bor
65 Years of
depict the M
han the Stat
Compositio
n‐White an and Alaska
n American
an and Other
f two or morace alone
0
0
rough 2035 L
f Age and Ol
MSB’s popul
te as a whol
n – 1990, 20
19936,905
7%a
1,808 (
295 (0
258 (0
e 191 (0
7,069
2010
Long Range T
der
ation broken
e, is becomi
000, 2010, a
90 (93%) 51,%
(4.9%) 3,
0.8%) 4
0.7%) 4
0.5%) 3,
10,2
201
Transportat
n down by r
ng more div
nd 2014
2000 ,938 (87.6%)12.4%
,264 (5.5%)
411 (0.7%)
414 (0.7%)
74 (0.1%)
,221 (5.4%)
284
15
tion Plan: Te
ace. In gene
verse.
201075,540 (84
15.1%
4,901 (5.
856 (1.0
1,096 (1.
221 (0.2
6,381 (7.
chnical Appe
eral, the MSB
0 24.9%) 79,2% (1
5%) 5,00
0%) 845
2%) 1,29
2%) 243
2%) 7,18
endix
B is
2014 273 (84.5) 15.5%)
05 (5.3%)
5 (0.9%)
94 (1.4%)
3 (0.3%)
83 (7.7%)
Matanus
Figure 4.
HousingA housin
the majo
Needs As
were occ
seasonal
Accordin
2014; the
$30,013.
EconomEconomi
direct rel
directly r
influence
4 A housingseparate liunit as the
ska‐Susitna B
MSB Popul
g Units ang unit4 is an
ority of trips
ssessment, t
cupied and 9
, recreationa
g to the 201
e median fam
mic Trendc activity, su
lationship to
related to th
es the type o
g unit is a housving quarters aeir usual place o
Borough 203
ation Perce
nd Househimportant f
begin and e
here are 40,
9,655 (23.8 p
al, or occasio
10‐2014 ACS
mily income
ds uch as the nu
o transportat
e level of ec
of travel taki
se, apartment, and can be occof residence.
35 Long Rang
ntage by Ra
hold Incofactor in tran
nd. Accordin
,578 housing
percent) wer
onal use.
, the median
was slightly
umber of ho
tion demand
conomic acti
ng place.
mobile home cupied or empt
ge Transport
ce, 2014
me nsportation
ng to the Ma
g units in the
re vacant. Of
n household
y higher at $
ouseholds an
d. Generally
ivity within a
or trailer, grouty; a household
tation Plan:
planning be
atanuska‐Su
e MSB. Of th
f the vacant
d income in t
82,369; and
nd median in
speaking, th
a community
up of rooms, od includes all t
Technical A
cause it is th
usitna Borou
hese, 30,932
t units, the m
the MSB was
d the per cap
ncome of a c
he number o
y. Economic
r single room ohe people who
ppendix
he place whe
gh 2014 Hou
2 (76.2 perce
majority are
s $72,134 in
pita income w
community,
of trips take
c activity also
occupied as o occupy a hou
11
ere
using
ent)
for
was
has a
n is
o
using
12
The MSB
characte
State has
unique in
residents
is experie
range of
EmployLocal trav
well as th
workers
Table 3.
Natural R
Construct
Manufact
Trade, Tra
Informati
Financial
Professio
Education
Leisure an
State Gov
Local Gov
Other
UnknownSource: DOL&
EarningAccordin
persons e
5 The QCEWthese progunemploymForces, and
Matanuska‐
B is a unique
rized by rap
s come close
n that substa
s working in
encing empl
goods and s
yment andvel patterns
he number a
who live in t
Number of W
Resources and
tion
turing
ansportation
ion
Activities
nal and Busin
nal and Healt
nd Hospitality
vernment
vernment
n &WD
gs by Placeg to the Qua
employed in
W information grams represenment insurancd elected offic
‐Susitna Bor
Alaska econ
id populatio
e to the MSB
antial portio
the MOA an
oyment grow
services to it
d Earning are influenc
and type of j
the MSB by i
Workers by
d Mining
, and Utilities
ness Services
th Services
y
e of Work arterly Cens
n the MSB w
is derived fromnts approximate include self‐eials.
rough 2035 L
nomic region
on growth du
B’s record po
n of the eco
nd spending
wth in busin
ts growing po
gs ced by the n
obs availabl
industry.
Industry Re
s
s
us of Employ
as $975,754
m Unemploymtely 97% of all employed wor
Long Range T
n in several a
uring the pas
opulation an
onomic activ
their incom
nesses and in
opulation.
umber and t
e in the MSB
esiding in the
yment and W
4,876 in 2015
ment Insurance wage and salakers, most agr
Transportat
aspects. The
st five decad
nd employme
ity in the MS
me within MS
nstitutions t
type of jobs
B. Table 3, b
e MSB, 2012
Number ofworkers2,954 4,225 514 8,006 990 1,280 3,339 5,887 3,558 2,413 4,336 957 4
Wages (QCE
5.5, 6 One of
programs in thry civilian empricultural worke
tion Plan: Te
e MSB has be
des. No othe
ent growth.
SB is the pro
SB’s local eco
hat are prov
held by MS
below, show
2
f Pe
W), the ann
the reasons
he US. Employployment. Majoers, members
chnical Appe
een
er area of the
The MSB is
oduct of MSB
onomy. The
viding a wide
B residents
s the numbe
ercent of totemployed
7.7 11 1.3 20.8 2.6 3.3 8.7 15.3 9.3 6.3 11.3 2.5 0
ual earnings
s many resid
yment coveredor exclusions fof the Armed
endix
e
also
B
MSB
er
as
er of
tal
s of
ents
by from
Matanus
choose to
monthly
be earne
Labor FAccordin
(64.5 per
Approxim
the 11.6
Figure 5
2010, 45
Figure 5.
Table 4 s
6 DOL&WDat: http://l
1%1%
ska‐Susitna B
o work outs
wage in the
ed on the No
Force g to the 201
rcent of the
mately 6.7 pe
percent rate
depicts the w
percent of M
Where MSB
hows the tra
D. 2015. Prelimive.laborstats.
31%
% 8%
Borough 203
ide the MSB
MSB was $3
orth Slope an
13 ACS 5‐yea
MSB’s popu
ercent were
e of unemplo
work locatio
MSB’s emplo
B Residents
avel pattern
minary Annual Ealaska.gov/qce
4%
35 Long Rang
B is because t
3,561 compa
nd elsewhere
ar estimate,
ulation), up f
unemploye
oyment in 1
ons for MSB
oyed residen
Work, 2010
ns of employ
Employment anew/ee15.pdf
55%
ge Transport
the wages a
ared to $4,7
e.
the MSB’s la
rom 24,981
ed in 2013, w
990.
residents in
nts worked o
0
ed MSB resi
nd Wages Janu
MataBoro
MunAnch
FairbBoro
KenaBoro
Nort
Rest
tation Plan:
are often hig
732 in Ancho
abor force co
in 2000 and
which is the s
2010. Acco
outside the
idents.
uary – Decemb
anuska Susitough
nicipality ofhorage
banks North Sough
ai Peninsulaough
h Slope Boro
of State
Technical A
gher. In 2015
orage. Even h
onsisted of 4
d 17,971 in 1
same as 200
rding to the
Borough.
ber 2015. Avail
na
Star
ough
ppendix
5, the averag
higher wage
44,152 perso
1990.
00 but lower
DOL&WD, i
able on the int
13
ge
es can
ons
r than
n
ternet
14
Table 4.
Travel MWorked aDrove AloCar PooleUsed PubOther Total Note: Numbemeans. Sources: ACS,
Table 5 s
travel tim
decrease
Table 5.
Time in Minutes < 10 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 59 60 to 89 90 > Total Source: U.S.
RegisteAs the M
The num
automob
trailer, tr
vehicles
of registe
Matanuska‐
MSB Home‐
Mode at Home one to Work ed blic Transport
ers are for workers
, U.S. Census Bure
hows the tim
me to work i
ed by nearly
MSB Travel
# Pers3,062,071,851,243075361,192,81,0814,7
Census Bureau
ered VehicMSB’s popula
ber of vehic
biles. The nu
railer, comm
has generall
ered vehicle
‐Susitna Bor
‐to‐Work Tra
tation
s 16 years and old
eau 2000, 2005, an
me it takes M
n 2000 was
8 minutes b
Time to Wo
1990 sons Pe64 275 59 142 801 23 5
68 299 817 180 7758 9
cles tion has gro
cles is an ind
mber of reg
mercial truck,
y increased
s declined sl
rough 2035 L
avel Pattern
1990 812
10,3802,559 33
1,786 15,570
er. Other commut
nd 2012.
MSB residen
40.7 minute
between 200
ork, 1990, 20
ercent #20.7% 14% 12.6% 8.4% 2.1% 5.1% 2.5% 8.1% 19.1% 7.3% 99.9%
own, so has t
icator of the
istered vehi
, pickup, bus
between 19
lightly befor
Long Range T
ns, 1990, 200
201,516,4,011,924,
te methods includ
ts to travel t
es, which me
00 and 2012.
000, and 201
200# Persons
3,416 2,995 2,841 2,072 777 1,580 895 2,406 3,784 2,336 23,102
the number
e high depen
cles include
s, and snowm
980 and 201
re rising agai
Transportat
00, 2005, an
000 547 ,988 021 60 933 ,649 e bus, railroad, m
to work. Acc
eans the ave
.
12
00 Percent14.8% 13.0% 12.3% 9.0% 3.4% 6.8% 3.9% 10.4% 16.4% 10.1% 100.1%
of registere
ndency MSB
s passenger
mobile. The
1. In 2012, 2
in in 2015.
tion Plan: Te
nd 2012
2005 1,058 23,451 6,753 96
2,037 33,395
otorcycle, bicycle,
cording to th
erage commu
# Perso4,4474,2784,7543,260973 2,190368 264 921 809
22,504
d vehicles (s
residents h
, motorcycle
number of r
2013, and 20
chnical Appe
20122,34726,7035,1533202,75037,273
, walking, or other
he ACS, the m
ute time has
2012 ons Perc7 19.8 19.4 21.0 14.
4.30 9.7
1.61.24.13.6
4 100
see Figure 6)
ave on
e, commerci
registered
014, the num
endix
2 7 3 3
0 3 r
mean
s
cent 8% 0% 1% 5% 3% 7% 6% 2% 1% 6% 0%
).
al
mber
Matanus
Figure 6.
Source: Alask
Note: Data no
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
ska‐Susitna B
Number of
ka Department of M
ot available for 19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Borough 203
Registered
Motor Vehicles
90, 1992, and 199
35 Long Rang
Vehicles in
95.
ge Transport
the MSB, 19
tation Plan:
980–2015
Technical A
ppendix
15
16
Matanuska‐
‐Susitna Bor
T
rough 2035 L
This page int
Long Range T
tentionally le
Transportat
eft blank.
tion Plan: Te
chnical Appeendix
ExisstingCh
g Cohaptondit
ter 3tions
17
3 s
18
Matanuska‐
‐Susitna Bor
T
rough 2035 L
This page int
Long Range T
tentionally le
Transportat
eft blank.
tion Plan: Te
chnical Appeendix
Matanus
ChaptThis chap
surface t
roadway
classifica
transit op
pedestria
marine a
described
RoadwHighway
transport
moveme
an efficie
origin to
The MSB
meander
districts t
roads. Ro
Cities of
Many im
Glenn an
such as n
Trunk Ro
and reali
continue
However
additiona
key arter
uncontro
subdivisi
use the P
business
subdivisi
ska‐Susitna B
er 3 Exispter includes
ransportatio
traffic volum
tion, level o
perations, an
an facilities.
re specialize
d in Chapter
way Systems and roads
tation system
nt of people
ent transpor
destination
B road system
ring system o
to its curren
oads in the M
Houston, Pa
provements
nd Parks High
new sections
oad, improvi
gning South
e to upgrade
r, the ongoin
al roadway i
rial connecti
olled access.
ons are neit
Palmer‐Wasi
es or to visit
on connectiv
Borough 203
sting Cons an overview
on details su
mes, functio
f service, saf
nd bike and
Rail, aviatio
ed modes th
rs 7, 8, and 9
m are the prim
m in the MS
e and goods
tation netwo
.
m is evolving
of narrow ro
t system of
MSB are own
almer, and W
s has been m
hways to con
s of the Boga
ng the collec
Big Lake Ro
the MSB ro
ng rapid grow
mprovemen
on between
This arteria
her intercon
illa Highway
t neighbors.
vity and red
35 Long Rang
nditions w of
uch as
onal
fety,
n, and
at are
9.
mary
B. The
requires
ork from
g from a
oadways tha
Interstate H
ned and mai
Wasilla; and a
made in the l
ntrolled acce
ard/Seldon C
ctor road ne
oad. Several
ad system.
wth and low
nts are need
n Palmer and
l connection
nnected nor
to travel les
The collecto
uce local tra
ge Transport
at connected
ighways, art
intained by D
a few roads
ast 20 years
ess freeways
Corridor, Sew
etwork such
more projec
w density dev
ed. For exam
d Wasilla car
n also serves
accessed by
ss than one‐
or road netw
affic accessin
tation Plan:
d communiti
terials, colle
DOT&PF; MS
are owned b
s, including u
s, constructi
ward Meridi
as Mack Roa
cts are being
velopment p
mple, the Pa
rries high tra
s as a local ro
y collector‐le
‐quarter mile
work needs t
ng arterials t
Technical A
es, farms, a
ectors, and s
SB and its RS
by the Chick
upgrading po
ing new arte
ian Parkway
ad Extension
g implement
pattern of th
lmer‐Wasilla
affic volumes
oad because
evel roads. R
e to access a
to be expand
to make sho
ppendix
nd mining
upporting lo
SAs; and the
kaloon Villag
ortions of th
erial roadwa
, and the ne
n, Vine Road
ted that will
he MSB mean
a Highway, i
s and has
e many adjac
Residents mu
adjoining
ded, to impr
rt trips.
23
ocal
e
ge.
he
ys
ew
d,
ns
is a
cent
ust
rove
20
Understa
safety co
address c
decision
AnnuaAnnual A
the annu
year. AAD
to handle
Figure 7.
Matanuska‐
anding the e
oncerns, leve
current limit
making.
l AverageAverage Daily
ual traffic vol
DT can be us
e the existin
Annual Ave
‐Susitna Bor
xisting road
el of service,
tations and f
e Daily Tray Traffic (AA
lume on a gi
sed to ident
g traffic volu
erage Daily T
rough 2035 L
way system
and other f
future needs
affic ADT) is a help
iven roadwa
ify areas tha
umes. The 2
Traffic, 2015
Long Range T
in the MSB,
factors will a
s. This chapt
pful tool in u
ay segment d
at may have
013 AADT is
5
Transportat
, how well it
aid in making
ter lays the f
understandin
divided by th
increased w
s shown on F
tion Plan: Te
t functions to
g sound proj
foundation o
ng traffic pat
he number o
wear or need
Figure 7.
chnical Appe
oday, import
ject decision
of informed
tterns. AADT
of days in the
d improveme
endix
tant
ns to
T is
e
ents
Matanus
FunctioFunction
categorie
expected
There are
classifica
Arter
traffi
quick
to be
minim
interc
Colle
local
each.
and a
Local
home
prope
acces
inters
Table 6 s
classifica
ska‐Susitna B
onal Classal classificat
es according
d to play in t
e three basic
tions:
rial: These ro
c can move
kly and safely
e largely acce
mal number
changes.
ctor: These
roads and p
. Collectors h
a moderate n
l: These road
es, businesse
erty. Local ro
ss controls a
sections or d
ummarizes t
tion and
Borough 203
sification tion assigns
g to the role
he moveme
c functional
oads provide
from one pl
y. Arterials a
essed contro
of intersect
roads link ar
perform som
have some a
number of in
ds provide a
es, and othe
oads do not
nd can have
driveways.
the MSB fun
35 Long Rang
roadways
they are
nt of traffic.
e mobility so
ace to anoth
are expected
olled with a
ions or
rterials and
me duties of
access contro
ntersections
ccess to
er
have any
e frequent
nctional
ge Transport
.
o
her
d
ol
s and drivew
Courte
Accordin
2014 an
of respo
that traf
in the M
tation Plan:
ways.
esy of DOT&P
ng to the M
d Trends 2
ondents ag
ffic conges
MSB.
Technical A
PF
MSB Comm
2009‐2014
greed or str
stion is a se
ppendix
munity Surv
, 63.4 perc
rongly agre
erious prob
23
vey
cent
eed
blem
22
Figure 8
Table 6.
FunctionClassifica
Local
Collector
Arterial
Interstate
Total
Matanuska‐
shows curre
MSB Functio
nal ation
e
‐Susitna Bor
ent roadway
onally Classi
Lengt
1
5
2
2
rough 2035 L
functional c
ified Roadw
h (Miles)
1,633
548
183
266
2,630
Long Range T
classification
ways
PerceNetw
62
21
7
10
100
Transportat
n.
ent of work
2
1
7
0
0%
tion Plan: Te
FHWA RPercent of
R6
1
chnical Appe
ecommendef Total NetwRange 65‐80%
5‐10%
12‐25%
NA
endix
ed work
M
F
Matanuska‐Susi
Figure 8. MSB F
itna Borough 20
Functional Class
035 Long Range
sification
Transportation
n Plan: Technical Appendix
23
24
NationaThe Natio
roads tha
part of th
Highway
SystemOne mea
qualitativ
to maneu
LOS are g
condition
Figure 9.
Source: H
This LRTP
currently
but LOS C
Trunk Ro
Model sh
The road
Knik‐
Palm
Parks
al Highwaonal Highwa
at are impor
he NHS with
, and Knik‐G
m Performaasure of tran
ve measure
uver, traffic
given letter d
ns and LOS F
Summary o
Highway Cap
P update wil
y operating a
C is preferre
oad) and inte
hows that so
ds that are cu
‐Goose Bay R
er‐Wasilla H
s Highway th
ay Systemay System (N
rtant to the n
in the MSB a
Goose Bay Ro
ance nsportation s
used to desc
interruption
designations
F representin
of Levels of S
pacity Manu
l recommen
at an accept
ed for princip
erstate highw
ome roadwa
urrently perf
Road: LOS D
Highway: LO
hrough Was
m NHS) include
national eco
are the Glen
oad.
system perfo
cribe traffic
ns, comfort a
s, from A to
ng the worst
Service
al and HDR
nd projects t
able LOS. Th
pal arterials
ways (e.g., th
ys are opera
forming at a
D, E, and F
OS D – NO LO
silla: LOS D
Matanusk
s the Interst
onomy, defe
nn Highway,
ormance is L
conditions a
and conveni
F, with LOS
t (see Figure
hat improve
he MSB cons
(e.g., the Pa
he Parks and
ating at unac
n unaccepta
OS F
ka‐Susitna Bo
tate Highway
nse, and mo
Parks Highw
Level of Serv
and the spee
ence, and sa
A represent
e 9).
e the perform
siders LOS D
lmer‐Wasilla
d Glenn High
cceptable lev
able LOS inc
orough 2035
y System as
obility. Corrid
way, Palmer‐
vice (LOS), w
ed and trave
afety experie
ting the best
mance of roa
or above to
a Highway a
hways). The
vels today (s
lude:
5 Long Rang
well as othe
dors that are
‐Wasilla
which is a
el time, freed
enced by use
t operationa
adways that
o be accepta
and the new
MSB Traffic
see Figure 1
e Transporta
er
e
dom
ers.
l
t are
ble,
0).
ation Pla
M
F
Matanuska‐Susi
Figure 10. MSB
itna Borough 20
Existing Level o
035 Long Range
of Service
Transportation
n Plan: Technical Appendix
25
26
Safety Between
crashes r
Table 7.
Fatal Cras
Total Fata
Fatalities Source: NHTS
Safety CIn 2006, t
existing r
Safety Co
Inters
A 3‐ t
avera
A 3‐ t
100 p
Agen
Equa
As of Oct
7 http://dot95_2015.p8 Thomas, http://wwwScott%20E
Matanuska‐
n 2011 and 2
ranged from
Fatalities, 2
shes
alities
per 100,000 SA, 2016
7 and DOT
Corridors the State ad
roads safer.8
orridor consi
states, rural
to 5‐year fat
ages
to 5‐year fat
percent of st
cies agree o
l to or great
tober 2016,
.alaska.gov/stwpdf Scott E., PE. n.w.westernite.oE.%20Thomas.p
‐Susitna Bor
015, the num
9 to 12 (see
011‐2015
population T&PF, 2016
dopted Alask8 Alaska ado
ideration:
major arter
tal and majo
tal and majo
tatewide ave
on measurab
er than 5 mi
there are tw
wdplng/hwysa
d. Safety Corriorg/annualmeepdf
rough 2035 L
mber of fata
e Table 7).
ka Statute 19
pted the fol
rials, or colle
r injury incid
r injury cras
erages
ble, effective
iles in length
wo Safety Co
fety/assets/pd
idors in Alaskaetings/alaska1
Long Range T
alities ranged
2011
9
13
14.15
9.10.075, Saf
lowing minim
ectors with a
dent rate gre
h rate per 1
e traffic cont
h, of similar
orridors in th
df/Fatal_Motor
. Available at 1/Compendium
Transportat
d from 11 to
2012
11
11
11.73
fety Corrido
mum criteria
an AADT equ
eater than 1
00 million ve
trol and traff
character, w
he MSB (see
r_Vehicle_Cras
m/Moderated
tion Plan: Te
o 15 and the
2013
10
11
11.47
or legislation
a to identify
ual or greate
110 percent o
ehicle miles
fic patrol pla
with logical t
Figure 11):
shes_by_Broug
%20Session%2
chnical Appe
number of
2014 20
12
14
14.24 14
to make
y segments f
er than 2,000
of statewide
greater tha
an
ermini
gh_Census_Are
20Papers/3D‐
endix
fatal
015
12
15
4.84
or
0
e
n
ea_19
Matanus
Parks
Lake
Knik‐
Highw
Road
On these
made roa
added sig
roadway
installed
limit sign
for unsaf
has also
result of
the numb
corridors
The Palm
between
Highway
as a High
Bridge FHWA m
State Tra
20 feet in
and reco
primary b
overall ch
structura
carrying
An insuff
Struc
subst
NBI R
signif
ska‐Susitna B
s Highway: W
‐Goose Bay R
way to Point
e corridors, D
adway impro
gnage identi
as a Safety
radar‐activa
ns, and incre
fe activity. E
been increas
these impro
ber of crash
s has decline
mer‐Wasilla H
the Glenn a
s, has been
hway Safety
Conditionaintains a da
ansportation
n length. Usi
rd up to 116
bridge comp
haracterizat
al assessmen
capacity are
ficient bridge
cturally Defic
tructure, sup
Rating Scale)
ficantly belo
Borough 203
Wasilla to Bi
Road: Parks
t MacKenzie
DOT&PF has
ovements,
ifying the
Corridor,
ated speed
ased fines
nforcement
sed. As a
ovements,
es in these
ed.
Highway,
and Parks
nominated
Corridor.
ns atabase, the
n Agencies, o
ing National
6 standards f
ponents—th
ion of the br
nt of the clea
e used to det
e is categori
cient – A brid
perstructure
. A bridge ca
w current d
35 Long Rang
g
e National Br
on all public
Bridge Insp
for the NBI.
e deck, subs
ridge’s gene
arances, app
termine the
zed in one o
dge is consid
e, or culvert
an also be st
esign standa
Figure
ge Transport
ridge Invent
bridges in th
ection Stand
The databas
structure, an
ral condition
proach roadw
sufficiency o
of two ways:
dered struct
is rated at o
tructurally d
ards, or the a
11. MSB Tra
tation Plan:
ory (NBI), w
he United St
dards, State
se contains c
nd superstru
n. The condi
way alignme
of a bridge.
urally deficie
r below “po
eficient if lo
adequacy of
affic Safety C
Technical A
with data coll
tates that ar
inspectors v
condition ra
ucture—that
ition ratings
ent, deck geo
ent if the de
oor” conditio
oad‐carrying
f the waterw
Corridors
ppendix
ected by the
e greater th
visually asse
tings for the
t provide an
, along with
ometry, and
eck,
on (0 to 4 on
capacity is
way opening
27
e
an
ss
e
a
d load
the
28
provi
traffi
defic
when
and w
Funct
meet
funct
the c
struc
Error! Re
obsolete
insufficie
percent a
but have
Table 8.
Status Structura
FunctionaNot DeficSource: NBI
9
DOT&PFAlaska DO
http://do
Transit Non‐prof
These en
Chickaloo
Mat‐Su S
transport
9 NBI. 20168/25/2016
Matanuska‐
ded is deter
c interruptio
ient” does n
n left open to
will eventual
tionally Obso
ts current m
tionally obso
riteria for bo
turally defic
eference sou
bridges in t
ent rating. Ap
are function
low sufficie
Structurally
lly Deficient
ally Obsoleteient
F’s 2013 BriOT&PF’s mo
ot.alaska.gov
System fit entities, r
ntities includ
on Area Tran
Senior Cente
tation to ind
6. The Nationa6)
‐Susitna Bor
rmined to be
ons. A bridge
not necessar
o traffic, typ
lly need to b
olete – A bri
inimum des
olete classific
oth structura
ient, becaus
urce not fou
he MSB acco
pproximatel
ally obsolete
ency ratings.
y Deficient a
dge Repoost recent 20
v/stwddes/d
rather than l
e Mat‐Su Co
nsit System (
er (formerly
dividuals wh
l Bridge Invent
rough 2035 L
e very insuff
e that is clas
ily mean the
pically needs
be rehabilita
idge is funct
ign standard
cation does
al deficiency
se structural
nd. shows th
ording to the
y 9.7 percen
e. There are
nd Function
N
rt 013 Bridge R
desbridge/as
ocal govern
ommunity Tr
(CATS) and P
known as th
o meet certa
tory Database.
Long Range T
icient to the
sified under
e bridge is un
s major main
ted or repla
ionally obso
ds for width
not mean th
y and functio
deficiencies
he number o
e 2015 NBI.
nt of the brid
additional b
nally Obsolet
Number of B11
6 96
Report may b
ssets/pdf/20
ment, provid
ransit (MASC
People Move
he Palmer Se
ain eligibility
Available at h
Transportat
e point of ca
r the Federa
nsafe. A stru
ntenance and
ced to addre
olete if the ro
or vertical c
hat a bridge
onal obsoles
s are conside
of structural
Of the 113 c
dges are stru
bridges that
te Bridges in
Bridges
be found at t
013bridgerep
de public tra
COT), Valley
er’s Share‐a‐
enior Citizen
y qualificatio
ttp://nationalb
tion Plan: Te
using intoler
l definition o
ucturally def
d repair to r
ess deficienc
oadway geo
clearance cla
is unsafe. If
scence, it is o
ered more c
lly deficient
classified bri
ucturally def
do not qual
n the MSB, 2
Perce
the followin
port.pdf
ansit service
y Mover, Sun
‐Ride vanpo
s Center) als
ons such as b
bridges.com/in
chnical Appe
rable roadw
of “structura
ficient bridge
remain in ser
cies.
metry no lo
assifications.
a bridge me
only identifie
critical.
and functio
idges, 17 hav
ficient and 5
ify for the N
2015
ent of Total9.7
5.3 85
g link:
es in the MSB
nshine Trans
ool program.
so provides
being over 6
ndex.php (acce
endix
way
ally
e,
rvice
nger
. A
eets
ed as
nally
ve an
5.3
NBI
B.
it,
The
60
essed
Matanus
years of a
transit pr
Figure 12
The 2014
responde
transit, a
route ser
ska‐Susitna B
age or qualif
rovider is sh
2. Existing Tr
4 Matanuska
ents had nev
pproximate
rvice betwee
Borough 203
fying for the
own in Figur
ransit Servic
a‐Susitna Bo
ver used pub
ly 56 percen
en the MSB a
35 Long Rang
e Medicaid W
re 12.
ce
orough Comm
blic transpor
nt used Valle
and Anchora
ge Transport
Waiver progr
munity Surve
rtation in the
ey Mover, th
age (see Figu
tation Plan:
ram. The rou
ey found tha
e MSB. Of th
he major pro
ure 13).
Technical A
uting and sto
at over 90 pe
he responde
ovider of com
ppendix
ops for each
ercent of sur
nts that use
mmuter fixed
29
h
rvey
ed
d‐
30
Figure 13
Source: Mata
MASCOMASCOT
organizat
public tra
primarily
Federal,
Other so
include p
donation
contribut
advertise
service in
Palmer a
service to
Knik. It cu
vehicles
Deviation
offs. Dep
provides
schedule
Matanuska‐
3. MSB Publ
anuska‐Susitna Bor
OT T is a non‐pro
tion that pro
ansportation
y funded thro
State, and lo
urces of rev
passenger fa
ns, local gove
tions, and
ements. It pr
n the core ar
nd Wasilla w
o Meadow L
urrently ope
providing “R
n” bus servic
pending upon
“demand re
ed in advance
‐Susitna Bor
ic Transport
rough Community
ofit
ovides
n and is
ough
ocal grants.
enue
res, private
ernment
rovides
rea of
with limited
Lakes and
erates three
Route
ce, meaning
n the closen
esponse” bu
e by clients.
rough 2035 L
tation Servic
y Survey, 2014
that buses c
ness of the lo
s service, wh
All services
Figure 1
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
Long Range T
ces Used, 20
can deviate
ocation to th
hich does no
are availabl
14. MASCOT
50,815 5
2010 2
Transportat
014
from their r
he route and
ot follow a p
e to the gen
Ridership, 2
52,169
35,384
2011 2012
tion Plan: Te
oute for pic
d the time re
printed sched
neral public.
2010‐2015
433,068
2 2013
chnical Appe
kups and dro
equested. It
dule, trips a
Its hours of
27,720
21,34
2014 201
endix
op
re
46
5
Matanus
operatio
14 vehicl
Valley MValley M
transport
transit be
Anchorag
through
round tri
MSB and
another
and Eagle
shown in
SunshinSunshine
Talkeetn
Commun
operates
(with flag
four vehi
ChickaChickaloo
since 200
is provide
and had
Other trAnchorag
vans that
A‐Ride pr
clientele
10 The bus 11 MP 40 to
ska‐Susitna B
n are typical
es and had a
Mover over is a non
tation system
etween the
ge. It operat
Friday and p
ps per day b
d the Anchor
2 trips betw
e River. Ann
n Figure 15.
ne Transit e Transit pro
a, Trapper C
nity Health C
s Monday th
g stops), wit
icles and has
loon Area on Area Tran
06. It operat
ed Monday
a typical we
ransit provge Share‐A‐R
t can accom
rogram has
is comprise
can go up to ¾o 70 of the Gle
Borough 203
lly Monday t
an average w
n‐profit pub
m that provi
MSB and
tes Monday
provides 15
between the
rage Bowl an
een the MSB
ual ridership
vides public
Creek, Willow
Center, doing
rough Satur
h on‐deman
s a typical w
Transit nsit (CATS) h
es as a dem
through Frid
ekly ridersh
iders Ride added v
modate eigh
a weekly rid
d of people
¾ mile off the Senn Highway, C
35 Long Rang
through Frid
weekly rider
lic
ides
e
nd
B
p is
transportat
w, and Wasil
g business as
day on a dev
nd service to
weekly riders
has been ope
and respons
day from 8:3
ip of 50.
vanpooling s
ht to 13 peo
ership of ap
commuting
Spur Road for iChickaloon to S
Figu
20
40
60
80
100
ge Transport
day from 5:3
rship of 570.
tion for the U
lla). It is ope
s the Sunshi
viated flexib
o Trapper Cre
hip of 119.
erated by th
se service be
30am to 5:00
service to th
ple for appr
pproximately
between th
ndividuals withSutton, Buffalo
re 15. Valley
29,613
0
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
2010
tation Plan:
0 am to 7:30
Annual ride
Upper Susitn
erated by the
ne Transit C
ble route ser
eek, Willow,
e non‐profit
etween Chic
0pm. In 2014
e MSB in 19
oximately $
y 2,400. Fort
he Matanusk
h special needo, Soapstone, a
y Mover Rid
3
64,743
77,
0 2011 20
Technical A
0 pm. In 201
ership is sho
na Valley (pr
e non‐profit
Coalition. Sun
rvice10 in the
, and Wasilla
t Chickaloon
kaloon and
4, it operate
995. The pro
130 per mon
ty‐five perce
ka‐Susitna Va
s. and Palmer.
dership, 201
,621 80,446
012 2013
ppendix
14, it operate
wn in Figure
rimarily
Sunshine
nshine Trans
e Talkeetna a
a. It operate
n Native Villa
Palmer.11 Se
ed three veh
gram provid
nth. The Sha
ent of the
alley and Joi
0‐2015
80,953 78,634
2014 2015
31
ed
e 14.
sit
area
s
age
ervice
icles
des
are‐
nt
4
5
32
Base Elm
and 6 pe
Figure 16
The Mat‐
Willow, C
ridership
Transit CDOT&PF
Mover14
service. A
for conso
the MSB.
Inter-ReAs of Feb
between
12 MOA, 8/13 DOT&PFSeptemberhttp://dot14 Sunshineit is operat
4
Matanuska‐
mendorf‐Rich
rcent is trav
6. Distributio
‐Su Senior C
Chickaloon, a
p of 550.
Consolidathas mandat
to try to red
A study fund
olidated tran
. MASCOT a
egion Bus bruary 2017,
the MSB an
/15/2014. See F. 2016. Alaska r 2016. Draft. A.alaska.gov/stwe Transit was eted using triba
49%
6%
‐Susitna Bor
hardson (JBE
veling betwe
on of Share‐
enter prima
and Anchora
tion ted a consoli
duce duplica
ded through
nsit service a
and Valley M
, there were
nd communi
also http://wwStatewide LonAvailable at wdplng/areaplexcluded becaul funds, not DO
45%
rough 2035 L
R), 49 perce
en Girdwoo
‐A‐Ride Trip
rily operates
age. It curre
idation of tr
te expenses
the Mat‐Su
and recomm
Mover have s
three inter‐
ties other th
ww.vride.comng‐Range Trans
ans/lrtpp2014use it was an eOT&PF funding
%
M
MA
AG
Long Range T
ent is compri
d and Ancho
s by Locatio
s in the core
ntly operate
ansit service
s and put mo
Regional He
mended the b
ince merged
‐region bus c
han Anchora
sportation Plan
/docs/201609xtension of theg.
MSB to JBER
MSB toAnchorage
Anchorage tGirdwood
Transportat
ised of Valle
orage (see F
on
e area of the
es 29 vehicle
es provided
ore buses on
ealth Founda
best operatin
d as part of t
companies o
age. These in
n. Let’s Keep M
07_LRTP_police health clinic,
to
tion Plan: Te
ey to Anchor
igure 16). 12,
e MSB but m
es and has a
by MASCOT
n the road to
ation explor
ng structure
the consolid
offering tran
nclude:
Moving 2036: P
cyplan_draft.p, and CATS was
chnical Appe
rage commu, 13
ay go as far
typical wee
and Valley
o provide be
ed the poten
e for transit i
ation proces
nsit service
Policy Plan.
df s excluded bec
endix
ters,
as
kly
tter
ntial
n
ss.
cause
Matanus
The P
Anch
limite
Septe
Inter
Fairb
on M
passe
Soari
Richa
Anch
Active Active tra
policy ma
active tra
not have
typically
Wasilla. T
arterial r
existing s
ska‐Susitna B
Park Connec
orage, Talke
ed basis. It p
ember. In 20
ior Alaska B
anks, Tok, a
Monday, Wed
enger vans.
ing Eagle Tra
ardson and G
orage route
Transportansportation
akers. Almos
ansportation
a sidewalk
found in the
The separate
oad projects
separated pa
Borough 203
ction – The P
eetna, and D
provides serv
015, it carrie
Bus Line – Th
nd Northwa
dnesday, and
ansit – Soari
Glenn Highw
includes a s
tation Systn in the form
st everyone
n network co
requirement
e original Pa
ed paths tra
s that built t
aths are sho
35 Long Rang
Park Connec
Denali Park. I
vice seven da
d more than
he Interior A
y. In the MS
d Friday. Its f
ng Eagle Tra
ways within t
stop in Palm
tem m of walking
is a pedestr
onsists large
t, so the pre
lmer townsi
il network is
he paths in
wn in Figure
ge Transport
tion provide
t serves Wh
ays per wee
n 20,000 pas
laska Bus Lin
SB, its only st
fleet consist
ansit provide
he Copper R
er. This rout
and bicyclin
ian for at lea
ly of sidewa
esence of sid
te area and
s typically as
conjunction
e 17.
tation Plan:
es bus servic
hittier, Girdw
ek between m
ssengers.
ne provides
top is in Palm
ts of three cu
es public tra
River Basin a
te operates t
ng are of inte
ast a portion
alks and sepa
dewalks is sp
historic, com
ssociated wit
with roadw
Technical A
ce between S
wood, and M
mid‐May and
service betw
mer. It opera
ut‐away bus
nsportation
and MSB. Its
three days p
erest to MSB
n of each trip
arated paths
poradic. Side
mmercial pa
th recent DO
way improvem
ppendix
Seward,
Moose Pass o
d mid‐
ween Ancho
ates year‐ro
ses and two
along the lo
Gulkana‐Va
per week.
B residents a
p taken. Our
s. The MSB d
ewalks are
art of downto
OT&PF and M
ments. The
33
on a
rage,
ound
12
ower
aldez‐
and
r
does
own
MSB
34
Figure 17
Freight The safe
importan
life. In th
States, fr
rail. Truc
delivery w
large frei
hauling g
are the G
observat
traffic on
City of Pa
Matanuska‐
7. MSB Sepa
and efficien
nt to the MS
e MSB, like
reight is mov
king serves
with rail serv
ight transpo
goods to, fro
Glenn and Pa
ion indicatin
n the Bogard
almer to Chu
‐Susitna Bor
arated Bicyc
nt movemen
B economy
most areas o
ved mainly b
both long ha
ving long ha
rt. The majo
om, and thro
arks Highway
ng an increas
d‐Seldon cor
urch Road. S
rough 2035 L
le and Pede
t of freight i
and quality
of the Unite
by truck and
aul and loca
ul and very
or routes for
ough the MS
ys with visua
se in freight
ridor from th
Some of the
Long Range T
strian Trails
s
of
d
l
r
B
al
he
freight traffi
Transportat
s
ic on the Gle
tion Plan: Te
enn and Park
chnical Appe
ks Highways
endix
s is
Matanus
destined
Anchorag
retail goo
stations.
There is a
MacKenz
industria
such as w
upland a
is adjace
can be of
without e
complete
provide a
Please se
Section a
ska‐Susitna B
for the MSB
ge and the L
ods being tru
also conside
zie and the P
l/commercia
wood produc
rea that is c
nt or in prox
ffloaded, sto
excessive co
ed, will creat
a staging and
ee Chapter 1
and Chapter
Borough 203
B, but much
Lower 48. Of
ucked in from
erable intere
Port MacKen
al area. The
cts, mineral
urrently bein
ximity to the
ored, reclaim
onstraints an
te the shorte
d lay down a
10 for additio
11 for addit
35 Long Rang
of it is being
f the freight
m Anchorag
est in increas
nzie Rail Exte
port was de
ores, gravel
ng develope
e existing de
med, and shi
nd limitation
est rail route
area for the
onal informa
tional inform
ge Transport
g transporte
designed fo
ge or the Low
sing freight a
ension. Port
esigned to sh
, liquid and g
ed as part of
ep draft and
pped via rai
s. The Port M
e from Inter
Alaska Natu
ation regard
mation regar
tation Plan:
ed between A
r the MSB, m
wer 48 to ret
activity in th
MacKenzie
hip heavy ind
gaseous fue
the Port Ma
d barge dock
l, truck, pipe
MacKenzie R
ior Alaska to
ural Gas Line
ing the Port
rding Port M
Technical A
Anchorage a
much of it is
tail big box s
e MSB relat
is a deep wa
dustrial and
els, and ceme
acKenzie Rai
ks. As a resu
eline, barge,
Rail Extensio
o tidewater.
Project.
t MacKenzie
acKenzie.
ppendix
and Fairbank
associated w
stores and g
ed to Port
ater and
bulk materi
ent. It has a
il Extension
lt, bulk mate
and ship
on, when
It may also
Rail Extensi
35
ks or
with
as
ials
large
and
erials
on
36
Matanuska‐
‐Susitna Borrough 2035 L
Fi
Long Range T
iscal
Transportat
Ch Con
tion Plan: Te
haptnstra
chnical Appe
ter 4aints
endix
4s
Matanus
ska‐Susitna B
Borough 203
T
35 Long Rang
This page int
ge Transport
tentionally le
tation Plan:
eft blank.
Technical A
ppendix
37
38
ChaptRecogniz
Identifyin
improvem
they requ
next 20 y
reasonab
are part o
higher pr
included
The MSB
populatio
and curre
is at the c
mileston
densely p
establish
after the
Unlike pr
realistic f
the costs
Funds, in
revenues
with FHW
Tradition
sources:
revenues
2014, the
the price
rebound
15 Federal _____ to h
Matanuska‐
er 4 Finazing financia
ng funding c
ments can b
uire the MSB
years. A fisca
ble revenue
of a fiscally c
riority than t
.
B has experie
on growth o
ently exceed
cusp of popu
es required
populated p
hed as a Met
2020 Censu
revious MSB
financial pla
s of roadway
ncluding Stat
s. Once an M
WA regulatio
nally, funding
FHWA, the S
s have been
e price of a b
e has droppe
ed to the hig
regulations reqhave an MPO. A
‐Susitna Bor
ancial Col realities is c
onstraints a
e implemen
B to forecast
ally constrain
forecast. Pro
constrained
those that a
enced signifi
ver the last
ds 100,000 re
ulation and
to have the
ortion of the
tropolitan Pl
us. MPOs are
B LRTPs, this
n to pay for
y improveme
te General F
MPO is estab
ons and addr
g for surface
State, and th
the result o
barrel of Ala
ed to $30.00
gh $40.00 to
quire any urbaA UZA is a cens
rough 2035 L
onstraintscritical to th
dds realism
nted. Fiscal c
t the amoun
ned LRTP ca
ojects that
plan are a
re not
cant
40 years
esidents. It
density
more
e MSB
anning Orga
e required to
LRTP update
the recomm
ents and fun
und Match;
lished in the
ress the man
e transportat
he MSB. Hist
f income ge
skan Crude
per barrel a
o low $50.00
nized area (UZsus‐designated
Long Range T
s e long‐range
to the plan
onstraints h
nt of transpo
n only recom
anization (M
o develop a f
e is fiscally c
mended proj
nding catego
State Gener
e MSB, the fi
ny sub‐categ
tion projects
torically, app
nerated by o
Oil exceeded
at its low poi
0 per barrel r
ZA) with a popud urban area w
REVENUES
FTA
MSB
OTH
ER
Transportat
e transporta
as it shows
help commun
ortation fund
mmend proj
PO).15 This d
fiscally cons
constrained.
ects. This in
ories to pay f
ral Funds; an
iscal constra
gories of Fed
s in the MSB
proximately
oil and gas r
d $100.00. H
int. As of Oc
range. Low p
ulation greaterwith 50,000 resi
SFH
WA
STATE
tion Plan: Te
ation plannin
how the LRT
nicate priori
ding they wi
ects that fit
designation w
strained LRT
This LRTP p
itial effort w
for them: Fe
nd Local MS
aint analysis
deral‐aid fun
B comes from
85 percent
oyalties and
However, sin
ctober 2016,
prices are no
r than 50,000 aidents or more
chnical Appe
ng process.
TP’s propose
ities because
ll have for th
within a
will likely oc
P.
presents a
will only look
ederal Highw
B Bond
must comp
nding.
m three mai
of State
d taxes. In Au
nce that time
the price ha
ow coupled w
and a density oe.
EXPENDITURES
ROADS
TRANSIT
BRIDGES
PATH
WAYS
endix
ed
e
he
ccur
k at
way
ly
n
ugust
e,
as
with
of
Matanus
low prod
500,000
This has
years ago
in State f
projects
Obligatio
to levera
to respon
revenues
identified
Between
DOT&PF
$40.0 mi
State).
Figure 18
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Mill
ions
ska‐Susitna B
duction, with
gallons per d
had a signifi
o, the Fiscal
funded trans
statewide. S
on Bonds issu
ge Federal H
nd to the ma
s and produc
d.
n 2001 and 2
and $27.8 m
llion from th
8. Annual Tr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Borough 203
h the Trans‐A
day, resultin
cant impact
Year (FY) 20
sportation p
Since then, t
ued for road
Highway and
any roadway
ction increas
013, the MS
million per ye
he 2011 Roa
ransportatio
35 Long Rang
Alaska Pipeli
ng in greatly
on the Stat
015 State Ca
rojects in ad
here has be
dway project
d Aviation Fu
y needs in th
se significan
SB received a
ear from the
d Bond Pack
on Funding b
ge Transport
ne only ope
reduced rev
e’s ability to
pital Improv
ddition to th
en essential
ts except for
unds. This de
he MSB. It is
tly and/or n
an average o
e State (Figu
kage (50 per
by Source, 20
tation Plan:
erating at 25
venues for th
o fund transp
vement Prog
e federally f
ly no State G
r the roughly
ecrease in St
expected th
ew State an
of $46 millio
re 18). In ad
rcent of the
001‐2013
Technical A
percent cap
he State.
portation pr
gram include
funded trans
General fund
y 10 percent
tate funding
hat will be th
nd local reve
on per year f
ddition, the M
bond was fu
MSB
State GF
FHWA
ppendix
pacity, or rou
ojects. Two
ed over $1 b
sportation
ding or Gene
t match nee
g limits the a
he case until
nue sources
from FHWA v
MSB receive
unded by the
F
39
ughly
illion
eral
ded
bility
l oil
s are
via
ed
e
40
DOT&PF
Statewid
Sources1
C
N
R
R
16 DOT&PFhttp://dot
Matanuska‐
administers
e Transport6, these prog
MAQ (Cong
can be
federa
lots, t
progra
dust c
either
of wo
NHPP (Nation
Congr
perfor
of new
aid fu
towar
asset
previo
90.97
RHE (Rail Haz
reduc
crossi
install
funds
system
crossi
and es
federa
RTP (Recreat
and m
F. 2016. 2016‐2.alaska.gov/stw
‐Susitna Bor
s several Fed
ation Improv
grams includ
estion Mitig
e proven to r
ally designat
ransit bus re
am improve
control qualif
r 90.97 perce
rk.
nal Highway
ress designa
rmance of th
w facilities o
nds in highw
rd the achiev
managemen
ous NHS, IM
percent.
zard Elimina
e the numbe
ngs through
lation/upgra
the federal
matically ma
ngs that ma
stablish and
al funds ratio
ional Trails
maintain recr
2019 STIP Surfawdplng/cip/sti
rough 2035 L
deral‐aid fun
vement Prog
de:
gation/Air Q
reduce traffi
ted non‐atta
eplacement,
ments, signa
ify for these f
ent or 100 pe
y Performan
ted the NHP
he National H
n the NHS, a
way construc
vement of pe
nt plan for th
and some B
ation Progra
er of fatalitie
h the elimina
ade of protec
requiremen
aintain a sur
ay require sep
d implement
o is 90 perce
Program) –
reational tra
ace Transportap/assets/1619
Long Range T
ding progra
gram (STIP)
Quality) – Th
fic congestion
ainment area
vehicle insp
al coordinati
funds. The f
ercent, depe
nce Program
PP to provide
Highway Sys
and to ensur
ction are dire
erformance
he NHS. This
BR fund code
m) – This pu
es and injurie
ation of haza
ctive devices
t that each s
rvey of all hig
paration, re
a schedule o
ent.
This funding
ails and trail
ation Funding S_stipfundcode
Transportat
ms. As listed
Surface Tran
hese funds ar
n and/or imp
as. Projects s
pection and m
tion, ride sha
federal funds
ending upon
m) – In MAP‐2
e support for
stem (NHS),
re that inves
ected to sup
targets esta
s funding cod
es. The feder
urpose of thi
ies at public
ards and/or t
s at crossing
state conduc
ghways to id
location, or
of projects fo
g category is
related facil
Sources. Availaes.pdf
tion Plan: Te
d in the 2016
nsportation
re for projec
prove air qu
such as park
maintenance
aring, and pa
s ratio varies
the specific
21 section 11
r the conditi
for the cons
tments of Fe
pport progres
ablished in a
de incorpora
ral funds rati
is program is
highway‐rai
the
gs. This prog
cts and
dentify railro
protective d
for this purpo
s intended to
lities for bot
able at:
chnical Appe
6‐2019
Funding
cts that
uality in
k and ride
e
aving for
s and is
c category
106,
on and
struction
ederal‐
ss
State’s
ates
io is
s to
il grade
ram
oad
devices,
ose. The
o develop
th non‐
endix
Matanus
S
SA
ST
TA
ska‐Susitna B
motor
admin
ratio i
148 (Safety
highw
SA fun
MAP‐2
Alaska
appor
reallo
repea
on mo
A40 (Safety
hazar
The fu
Inters
Transp
progra
laws a
alcoho
TBGP (Surfa
may b
highw
capita
allowe
classif
on int
was k
A (Transpor
Centu
Activit
progra
Impro
encom
Borough 203
rized and mo
nistered by t
is 90.97 perc
Sanction) –
way safety im
nding termin
21. The fund
a’s NHPP an
rtionments. E
cated becau
t driving und
otorcycles. T
Sanction) –
rd eliminatio
unds are ma
tate Mainte
portation Pr
am funds ar
addressing r
olic containe
ace Transpor
be used by th
way, includin
al projects, b
ed to use the
fication. The
terstate rout
known as the
rtation Alter
ury Act (MAP
ties with the
am, with fun
ovement Plan
mpassing mo
35 Long Rang
otorized recr
the Departm
cent.
This special
mprovement
nated follow
ds are made
d Surface Tr
Each year, 2
use Alaska do
der the influ
The federal sh
– This special
ns similar to
de available
enance, Natio
rogram appo
re reallocate
epeat drivin
ers on motor
rtation Block
he state and
g the NHS, b
bus terminals
ese funds on
e federal fun
tes or 90.97 p
e Surface Tra
rnatives) – T
P‐21) replace
e Transporta
nding derive
n (HSIP), CM
ost activities
ge Transport
reational tra
ent of Natur
l category of
projects sim
wing 2012 ap
available by
ransportatio
2.5 percent of
oes not have
ence charge
hare is 100 p
l category of
o Safety (SA1
e by a sanctio
onal Highwa
ortionments.
d because A
g under the
rcycles.
k Group Pro
d localities fo
bridge projec
s and faciliti
n any public
ds ratio vari
percent othe
ansportation
The Moving A
ed the Transp
ation Alterna
d from the N
MAQ and Me
funded und
tation Plan:
ail uses. This
ral Resource
f MAP‐21 saf
milar to Safet
portionmen
y a sanction,
on Block Grou
of these prog
e conforming
es and open
percent.
f safety fund
148) above,
on or reduct
ay System an
. Each year,
Alaska does n
influence ch
ogram) – Flex
or projects on
cts on any p
ies. Unlike ot
road in Alas
ies, typically
erwise. Prior
n Program.
Ahead for Pr
portation En
atives (TA) Pr
NHPP, STP, H
tropolitan P
der the Trans
Technical A
program is
es. The feder
fety funds a
ty (SA40) be
t with the pa
, or reductio
up Program
gram funds a
g laws addre
alcoholic co
ds addresses
100 percent
tion to Alask
nd Surface
3 percent of
not have con
harges and o
xible funding
n any Federa
ublic road, t
ther states, A
ska, regardle
y 93.4 percen
r to the FAST
rogress in th
nhancement
rogram, a ne
Highway Saf
Planning prog
sportation
ppendix
ral funds
ddresses
elow. New
assage of
on, to
(STBGP)
are
essing
ntainers
s highway
t federal.
ka’s
f these
nforming
open
g that
al‐aid
transit
Alaska is
ess of
nt if spent
T Act, this
he 21st
t (TE)
ew
fety
grams,
41
42
In additio
Transpor
for freigh
program
Natio
funds
freigh
impro
maxim
Alask
Sewa
this p
Foste
Natio
provi
proje
impro
impro
FAST
Howe
grant
at lea
2016
gover
distri
apply
elimi
17 Required18 Accordinpopulation
Matanuska‐
Enhan
under
on, the new
rtation Act, o
ht improvem
s:
onal Highwa
s to States o
ht movemen
ovement pla
mum of 10 p
ka has 1,222
ard Highways
program (Ma
ering Advanc
onal Efficienc
de $4.5 billi
ects over the
ove safety a
ove critical f
LANE grants
ever, 10 perc
t amount of
ast 25 perce
).18 States, M
rnments are
cts and pub
y for funding
nate freight
d in FY 2018 anng to FHWA, a n of more than
‐Susitna Bor
ncements, Re
r SAFETEA‐LU
federal tran
or FAST Act,
ments. Freigh
ay Freight Pr
ver a 5‐year
nts on the Na
an included i
percent of it
.23 miles in
s in Anchora
artinson, 201
cements in S
cies (FASTLA
on of fundin
e next 5 year
and hold the
freight move
s can be used
cent of FAST
$5 million. I
nt of each fi
Metropolitan
e among tho
lic authoritie
g to complet
bottlenecks
nd beyond. rural area is an 200,000.
rough 2035 L
ecreational T
U. The federa
nsportation f
was signed
ht funding un
rogram (NHF
r period. Elig
ational High
in a state’s f
s NHFP appo
the Nationa
age. Alaska is
15).
Shipping and
ANE) Grant P
ng to nationa
rs. Funding w
e greatest pr
ements” (U.
d for a maxim
TLANE grant
n addition, s
scal year’s F
n Planning O
se organizat
es (including
e projects th
s and improv
n area outside
Long Range T
Trails, and S
al funds rati
funding bill,
into law. Th
nder the FAS
FP): The FAS
gible projects
way Freight
freight plan (
ortionment f
l Highway Fr
s expected t
d Transporta
Program: Thi
ally and regi
will be identi
romise to el
.S. Departm
mum of 60 p
s are reserve
state Depart
FASTLANE gr
Organizations
tions eligible
g port autho
hat improve
ve critical fre
a U.S. Census
Transportat
Safe Routes t
io is 90.97 pe
the Fixing A
e FAST Act r
ST Act is prim
ST Act provid
s are those t
Network an
(FHWA, 201
for intermod
reight Netw
to receive $8
ation for the
is new comp
onally signif
ified “to com
iminate frei
ment of Trans
percent of to
ed for small
tments of Tr
rants for pro
s (MPOs), lo
e to apply fo
rities), and o
safety and
eight movem
Bureau design
tion Plan: Te
to School pro
ercent.
America’s Su
recognizes a
marily throu
des $6.3 bill
that contrib
nd are identi
6).17 States c
dal or rail fre
ork, includin
80 million in
Long‐Term
petitive gran
ficant freight
mplete proje
ight bottlene
sportation [
otal eligible
projects, wi
ransportatio
oject in rural
cal governm
r a grant. Sp
other parties
hold the gre
ments.
nated urbanize
chnical Appe
ograms
rface
nd creates f
gh two
ion in formu
ute to efficie
ified in a fre
can use a
eight project
ng the Glenn
funding thr
Achievemen
t program w
t and highwa
ects that
ecks and
DOT], n.d.).
project cost
ith a minimu
on need to sp
areas (DOT,
ments, and tr
pecial purpos
s are eligible
eatest promi
d area with a
endix
funds
ula
ent
ight
ts.
n and
rough
nt of
will
ay
.
ts.
um
pend
,
ribal
se
e to
se to
Matanus
2035 MS
The requ
sources a
future fu
were dev
MSB. The
$55 m
20 ye
No St
$10 m
$40 m
issue
other
In total, t
Fund Ma
million in
These fig
program
of the 20
example,
MSB proj
target th
2035.
ska‐Susitna B
SB LRTP Fisca
uirements of
are formula
nding levels
veloped base
e estimated
million annu
ears
tate General
million annu
million road
funded by v
r matching f
these financ
tch, $100 m
n MSB Bond
gures will pro
. Certain yea
0‐year recom
, the current
jects than th
rough 2035.
Borough 203
al Constrain
f each progra
apportioned
s on historica
ed on histor
revenue inc
ally in Feder
l Fund reven
ally in State
bonds to be
voter approv
unds)
cial assumpti
million in Stat
revenues fo
ovide genera
ars may rece
mmended ro
t FY 2016‐20
he $55 millio
. Figure 19 s
35 Long Rang
t Parameter
am and fund
d, while othe
al funding m
ical informa
cludes the fo
ral Highway
nue for roadw
General Fun
e issued in 20
ved tax reve
ions provide
te General F
or a total of $
al guidance i
eive more or
adway prog
019 STIP sho
on annual fe
hows the pr
ge Transport
rs and Assum
ding level va
ers are discr
may be mislea
tion combin
ollowing assu
Funds and S
way projects
nd revenue f
018, 2022, a
nue and $20
e $1.1 billion
unds for DO
$1.3 billion o
in preparing
r less of the f
ram is consis
ows significan
deral fundin
rojected futu
tation Plan:
mptions
ry from year
etionary allo
ading. The p
ned with guid
umptions:
State Genera
s from 2016
for 2026 to 2
and 2026 ($2
0 million pro
n in Federal H
OT&PF projec
over the 20‐
g the LRTP’s f
funding iden
stent with th
ntly more fe
ng target, bu
ure roadway
Technical A
r to year as s
ocations. As
projected fun
dance from
al Fund Matc
6 to 2025
2035 throug
20 million fo
ovided throu
Highway and
cts, and app
year horizon
fiscally cons
ntified, but t
he estimate
ederal dollar
ut it is consis
y revenue fo
ppendix
some fundin
a result, bas
nding levels
DOT&PF and
ch over the
gh DOT&PF
r each bond
ugh State or
d State Gene
roximately $
n of the LRTP
strained road
the overall c
d revenues.
rs addressing
tent with th
r 2016 throu
43
ng
sing
d the
next
eral
$120
P.
dway
ost
For
g
he
ugh
44
Figure 19
OperatFiscal con
infrastru
ensure th
design lif
ensures t
weather
sealing, w
full funct
roadway
end of its
maintain
Houston,
in State o
Operatio
include:
Snow
Dust
Matanuska‐
9. Projection
tions and nstraints als
cture must r
hat the road
fe. This inclu
that roadwa
conditions,
which helps
tional life. De
having to u
s projected d
ned by the St
, Palmer, an
or MSB own
ons and main
w removal, cu
control and
‐Susitna Bor
n of Future R
Maintenao must reco
receive rout
ways remain
udes both wi
ys remain o
and summe
ensure that
eferred main
ndergo a ma
design life. R
tate of Alask
d Wasilla. Th
ership.
ntenance act
ulvert thawi
grading
rough 2035 L
Roadway Re
ance gnize that ro
ine ongoing
n functional
nter mainte
pen during a
r maintenan
roadways w
ntenance of
ajor rehabilit
Roadways in
ka; the MSB;
he majority
tivities and c
ng, road san
Long Range T
evenue, 2016
oadway
maintenanc
throughout
enance, whic
adverse win
nce such as c
will achieve t
ten results i
tation prior
the MSB ar
and the Citi
of roadways
challenges
nding, and tr
Transportat
6‐2035
ce to
t their
ch
ter
crack
their
n a
to the
e
ies of
s are
raction main
tion Plan: Te
ntenance
chnical Appeendix
Matanus
Drain
Culve
Guar
Brush
mana
Potho
Crack
Pavem
Signa
Traffi
main
Traffi
Avala
The State
the fund
maintena
but has b
previous
For MSB
administ
contracts
$16.6 mi
The majo
Admi
Main
Capit
Capital im
funding f
deals wit
deals pri
classifica
Of the 1,
324 mile
ska‐Susitna B
nage
ert thawing
d rail repair
h removal an
agement
ole and pave
k sealing and
ment markin
age
ic signal and
tenance
ic counting
anche manag
e General Fu
ing for opera
ance for DOT
been signific
ly provided S
owned road
ers 13 maint
s). For FY 20
llion. All fun
or costs in 20
inistrative ($
tenance ($9
tal improvem
mprovement
for capital pr
th the needs
marily with t
tion of mino
397 miles of
s are unmai
Borough 203
nd vegetatio
ed shoulder
d repaving
ngs
d street light
gement
und provides
ations and
T&PF owned
antly reduce
State owned
ds, most of t
tenance con
14, the reve
ds, except a
014 were:
$2.2 million)
9.3 million)
ments ($5.1 m
ts are funde
rojects is no
s of the local
the improve
or collector o
f MSB owne
ntained but
35 Long Rang
on
repair
s most of
d roads
ed in 2015 p
d highways a
he funding i
ntracts for th
enue for road
administratio
million)
d by RSAs o
t included in
l road system
ement or ma
or above.
d roads, 1,0
monitored.
ge Transport
roviding a m
and roads.
s derived fro
he 16 RSAs (s
d maintenan
on, are RSA s
nly if fundin
n the fiscal c
m. However,
anagement o
73 miles are
Only 384 m
Future Op
Level of
o
o
Comple
o
o
Populat
Unfund
Illumina
Municip
(“MS4”
ATV Con
Rapid d
tation Plan:
much lower l
om taxes rai
six RSAs are
nce (from ta
specific.
g remains af
constraint an
, the fiscally
of roadways
e routinely m
iles are pave
perations a
f Service
Equipment
Brushing
ex Intersectio
Roundabout
Signals
tion growth
ed pavemen
ation
pal Separate
) permitting
nflicts
evelopment
Technical A
evel of serv
ised in RSAs
combined i
xes and inve
fter mainten
nalysis since
constrained
with a funct
maintained. T
ed.
and Mainte
ons
ts
nt repair and
e Storm Sew
g
t
ppendix
ice than
. The MSB
nto three
estments) w
nance. RSA
it primarily
d project fun
tional
The remaini
enance Iss
d replaceme
er Systems
45
as
nding
ng
ues:
ent
R
Roadway
y ReccomCh
mmenhaptndat
ter 5tions
5s
Maatanuska‐Su
This page int
sitna Boroug
tentionally lef
gh 2035 Lon
ft blank.
ng Range Tra
ansportationn Plan
47
Matanus
48
ChaptThis chap
long‐term
2014 TrThe MSB
regarding
populatio
regional
(AMATS)
including
Trip19
Trip d
Mode
Trip a
The mod
19 A trip is twork and s
ska‐Susitna B
er 5 Roapter describe
m recommen
ravel ModB’s travel mo
g transporta
on, the locat
model that
portion of t
g:
9 generation
distribution
e split: Whic
assignment:
eling proces
travel betweenshopping.
Borough 203
adway Rees the future
ndations for
del Backgodel evaluate
ation improv
tions and em
includes the
the MOA. It
n: How many
: Where doe
ch mode wil
: Which rout
ss is summar
n two points fo
35 Long Rang
ecommee roadway sy
r improveme
round es regional t
vements. The
mployment g
e Anchorage
uses a simpl
y trips occur
es the trip co
l be used by
te will each t
rized in Figu
or one purpose
ge Transport
endationsystem condi
ent.
ravel to help
e model is b
growth. The
Metropolita
lified plannin
r in the mod
ome from an
y each trip (e
trip take?
re 20.
e, for example,
tation Plan:
s itions as wel
p the MSB m
ased on the
model used
an Area Tran
ng approach
eled area?
nd go to?
e.g., persona
, between hom
Technical A
ll as short‐, m
make informe
current ant
d in the MSB
nsportation S
h consisting
al vehicles, tr
me and work, h
ppendix
medium‐, an
ed decisions
ticipated leve
is part of th
Solutions
of four steps
ransit)?
home and scho
nd
s
els of
he
s,
ool, or
Figure 20
The mod
employm
inputs su
altering t
The MSB
year for w
develope
baseline
Model Figure 21
distributi
20 A TAZ is
M
Matanuska‐
0. Modeling
el estimates
ment informa
uch as the tra
the two mai
B model used
which socioe
ed. This infor
traffic volum
Populatio1 and Figure
ion by Traffi
a geographic u
Model Inpu
‐Susitna Bor
Process Sum
s traffic for a
ation at the
ansportation
n inputs: lan
d for this LRT
economic an
rmation was
mes and patt
on and Em22 show the
c Analysis Zo
unit used for id
uts
Trip GeneraHow many
occur?
rough 2035 L
mmary
an average w
TAZ level. Tr
n network. T
nd use chang
TP has a bas
nd traffic cou
s used to val
terns before
mploymene travel mod
one (TAZ) 20.
dentifying dem
ationtrips
Trip DistribWhere d
trips comeand go
Long Range T
workday. Trip
raffic foreca
The model ca
ges and tran
e year of 20
unt data we
idate the m
e the model
nt del’s base ye
.
mographic and l
butiono the e from to?
Mode CWhat mtravel is
Transportat
ps are gener
sts are gene
an be used t
sportation n
010 because
re available
odel to ensu
is used to pr
ear househo
land use in tra
Choicemode of s used?
AssiWhat
trip
tion Plan: Te
rated using h
erated based
to evaluate f
network cha
that was the
when the m
ure it reason
roject future
old and empl
nsportation pl
ignment routes do
ps take?
Mo
chnical Appe
household a
d on land use
forecasts by
nges.
e most recen
model was
nably mirrors
e traffic.
loyment
anning models
del Results
endix
49
and
e
y
nt
s
s.
s
M
5
E
Matanuska‐Susi
50
Error! Reference
itna Borough 20
e source not fou
035 Long Range
und.Figure 21. H
Transportation
Household Dist
n Plan: Technica
ribution by TAZ
l Appendix
Z, 2010
F
Figure 22. Empl
oyment Distribbution by TAZ, 2
Matanuska‐Sus
2010
sitna Borough 20035 Long Range
e Transportationn Plan: Technica
al Appendix
51
Matanus
52
At the tim
employm
populatio
Parks Hig
represen
in the MS
employm
The work
The C
existi
The w
subd
multi
The L
conti
The B
in slo
The work
located w
of Wasill
developm
the Knik
ongoing
increase
This popu
Build‐out
the deve
The resu
ska‐Susitna B
me the mode
ment was exp
on and emp
ghway Altern
nting public a
SB. They we
ment develop
kshop indica
Core Area be
ing subdivisi
western Fair
ivisions are d
i‐family deve
Lazy Mounta
nued large l
Butte, where
ower growth
kshop indica
west of Wasi
a along Knik
ment. The Po
Arm Crossin
expansion o
as developm
ulation and
t Study. This
lopable land
lting popula
Borough 203
el was devel
pected to be
loyment, a c
native Corrid
and private s
re tasked wi
pment. The
ated that are
etween Palm
ons, and lan
view Loop A
developed, w
elopment;
ain and Palm
ot developm
e large agricu
.
ated that the
illa in the M
k‐Goose Bay
oint MacKen
ng, the Point
of Port MacK
ment and job
employmen
s study predi
d is used). Bu
tion and em
35 Long Rang
loped, the 2
e 51,300 em
charette (or
dor project.
sector organ
ith identifyin
results of th
eas of future
mer and Was
nd between
Area, where
with the pot
mer/Wasilla F
ment would o
ultural track
e areas of hig
eadow Lake
Road to Set
nzie area’s g
MacKenzie
Kenzie. Grow
b opportunit
t distributio
icted popula
uild‐out is es
mployment fo
ge Transport
035 populat
ployees. To
workshop) w
Charette pa
nizations wit
ng the likely
e 2010 char
growth wou
silla, where m
subdivisions
a higher leve
tential for so
Fishhook are
occur becau
ks and some
ghest potent
s, Big Lake, a
ttlers Bay, w
rowth would
rail extensio
wth is expect
ties occur.
n is consiste
ation and ho
stimated to
orecasts are
tation Plan:
tion was fore
identify the
was held in A
rticipants in
th long‐term
locations of
rette are sum
uld include:
moderate gr
s, are in‐fille
el of growth
ome smaller
eas, where s
use of water
water quan
tial growth w
and Houston
ith a mix of
d be depend
on, Goose Ba
ted to be slo
ent with the
ousing quant
occur in 206
shown in Fi
Technical A
ecasted to b
distribution
August 2010
ncluded stak
m knowledge
f future resid
mmarized be
rowth would
d;
h would occu
lots (less th
lower growt
availability
tity issues w
would contin
n areas as w
single and m
dent on the c
ay Correctio
ow in the nea
MSB’s 2012
tities at build
60.
gure 23 and
ppendix
be 189,000 a
n of the
0 as part of t
eholders
of developm
dential and
elow.
d occur as
ur as new
an 1 acre) a
th with
issues; and
would also re
nue to be
well as southw
multi‐family
construction
onal Center,
ar term and
2 Density and
d‐out (when
d Figure 24.
and
the
ment
nd
esult
west
n of
and
d
all
F
Figure 23. Hous
sehold Distributtion by TAZ, 203
Matanuska‐Sus
35
sitna Borough 20035 Long Range
e Transportationn Plan: Technica
al Appendix
53
M
5
F
Matanuska‐Susi
54
Figure 24. Empl
itna Borough 20
oyment Distrib
035 Long Range
bution by TAZ, 2
Transportation
2035
n Plan: Technical Appendix
Future Traffic fo
needs. W
LRTP, the
populatio
State’s G
improvem
Bogard E
oil began
creating
over $55
done littl
was stop
Funded C
slowed.
Within th
decided t
reasonab
according
has been
areas and
Corridor
2035. Ba
Road, the
levels of
21 These foprojections22 The MSBchanges thschedule o
Matanuska‐
Roadwayorecasts wer
When this LRT
e Knik Arm C
on within th
General Fund
ments were
East Road Ext
n its steady d
a fiscal crisis
per barrel,
le to improv
pped, the tim
Capital Budg
his set of cha
that the LRT
ble forecast
gly, given th
n placed on p
d more emp
areas. Figur
sed on this i
e Bogard‐Se
congestion.
orecasts were bs completed inB considered uhat would haveof the LRTP upd
‐Susitna Bor
y System Pe prepared f
TP update b
Crossing and
e MSB woul
d Capital Bud
under const
tension. How
decline, reac
s for the Stat
but still well
ve the State’s
ming of the A
get was virtu
anged circum
TP should co
of Future Ro
at the Knik A
projects in th
phasis has be
re 25 shows
information,
ldon corrido
based on the Un December 20pdating the trae to be made, udate.
rough 2035 L
Performanfor a 2035 p
egan in 2014
the Alaska N
d continue g
dget exceede
truction incl
wever, in mi
ching a low p
te of Alaska.
l below the J
s fiscal posit
Alaska Natur
ally non‐exi
mstances, an
ntinue to us
oadway Syst
Arm Crossin
he lower Kni
een placed o
the how the
, several key
or, and the P
University of Al009. avel model to rupdating the m
Long Range T
nce lanning hori
4, it was ass
Natural Gas
grow at appr
ed $1.0 billio
uding the Po
id‐2014, the
point of less
. As of Febru
June 2014 p
tion. During
al Gas Line b
stent, and p
nd uncertain
se the existin
em Perform
g will not be
ik‐Goose Bay
on the upper
e existing ro
y roads inclu
Palmer‐Wasi
aska Institute
reflect existingmodel would re
Transportat
izon to unde
sumed that w
Line would
roximately 2
on dollars an
oint MacKen
value of a b
than $21 pe
uary 2017, th
rice of over
2016, work
became less
population gr
nly about the
ng MSB traff
mance22 and a
e constructe
y Road and
r Knik Goose
oadway syste
ding the Par
lla Highway
of Social and E
g conditions. Hesult in substan
tion Plan: Te
erstand our f
within the 20
be construc
2.71 percent
nd several m
nzie Rail Exte
barrel of Alas
er barrel in F
he price rose
$100 per ba
on the Knik
certain, the
rowth within
e 2035 cond
fic model to
adjust recom
d by 2035. L
Point Mac K
e Bay and Pa
em is expect
rks Highway
would have
Economic Rese
owever, due tntial increases
chnical Appe
future traffic
0‐year life o
cted, and the
t annually21.
major capital
ension and t
ska North Sl
February 201
e has risen t
arrel, which
Arm Crossin
e State Gene
n the MSB
itions, it wa
make a
mmendation
Less emphas
Kenzie Road
rks Highway
ted to perfor
y, Knik‐Goose
e unacceptab
earch’s growth
o the extent ofto the budget
endix
55
c
f the
e
The
the
ope
16,
o
has
ng
eral
s
ns
sis
y
rm in
e Bay
ble
f the and
M
5
F
Matanuska‐Susi
56
Figure 25. MSB
itna Borough 20
Future 2035 Le
035 Long Range
evel of Service
Transportation
n Plan: Technical Appendix
As shown
system, t
Parks
Glenn
Knik‐
Big La
Seldo
Palm
Holly
Vine
Sewa
Trunk
The proj
needed o
effects d
likely to h
upgrades
and/or a
signals. C
residenti
Congesti
along ma
anticipat
certain ti
other con
congestio
methods
turn out
business,
23 These reCrossing beMacKenziepopulation
n in Figure 2
the following
s Highway
n Highway
Goose Bay R
ake Road
on Road
er‐Wasilla H
ywood Road
Road
ard Meridian
k Road
ject team an
over the nex
epending on
have, substa
s could be ac
dding more
Congestion o
al property
on on major
ajor roadway
ted heavy tra
imes of the d
nnecting roa
on. Major ro
s to relieve c
access; and
, and require
esults predict heing built. Wite and surroundn and employm
5, by 2035,
g roads are a
Road
Highway
n Parkway
nalyzed these
xt 20 years23
n surroundin
antial increas
ccomplished
traffic contr
on local stree
values or inc
r roadways h
ys are more
affic volume
day as roadw
adways in th
oadway impr
ongestion. T
frontage roa
e changes in
higher traffic vohout the bridgding areas. Thement distributio
unless there
anticipated t
e results to i
due to cong
ng developm
ses in capac
d through pr
rol measures
ets can limit
crease dema
has less of an
likely to hav
s. Although
way congest
he nearby are
rovements m
These impro
ads. These im
n travel patte
olumes in the Pge, less populate analysis, and on.
Matanusk
e are improv
to have unac
identify whic
gestion. Con
ment. Most lo
ity or operat
oviding tran
s such as me
access to ad
and for othe
n effect on a
ve bought th
a business m
tion increase
ea do not ex
may require
vements ma
mprovemen
erns.
Point MacKenztion and emploresulting recom
ka‐Susitna Bo
vements mad
cceptable le
ch roadway
gestion on l
ocal roads h
tional capab
nsit service, a
edian barrier
djacent prop
er land uses.
adjacent lan
he property b
may have few
es, the busin
xposure to th
limiting acce
ay include m
nts may affec
zie area due tooyment growthmmendations,
orough 2035
de to the tra
evels of cong
improveme
ocal roads h
ave not had
bility. Capaci
adding lanes
rs, roundabo
perties and t
d use. Prope
because of e
wer custom
ness is likely
he public to
ess through
medians, righ
ct adjacent l
o the assumptioh is expected t have incorpor
5 Long Rang
ansportation
gestion:
ents will be
has different
, and are no
ity or operat
s of traffic
outs, and tra
tends to low
erty owners
existing or
ers during
to remain if
similar
a variety of
ht turn in/rig
and uses, im
on of the Knik to occur in Poinrated this chan
e Transporta
57
n
t
ot
tional
affic
wer
f
ght
mpact
Arm nt nge in
ation Pla
Matanus
58
There are
motorize
the new
locations
business
are discu
Another
people to
such as w
increases
because
increasin
of sidewa
neighbor
and more
improvem
Chapter
Safety In additio
capacity, t
safety. Pu
terms of c
roads rea
demonstr
making ro
the MSB a
of resolvin
they have
known ca
informatio
LOS E or F
ska‐Susitna B
e multiple w
ed vehicles. T
controls and
s helps peak
es unnecess
ussed in Chap
way to addr
o use alterna
walking, bikin
s, people ma
of convenie
ng non‐moto
alks/pathwa
rhoods and c
e. The MSB i
ments to add
6 for additio
Concernsn to long rang
there needs t
ublic safety co
calls, observa
ch capacity. P
rates there ar
oadway impro
and DOT&PF
ng safety pro
e recurring se
pacity levels
on, additiona
F are reached
Borough 203
ways to addre
The added c
d restrictions
hour flows
sarily during
pter 5.
ress congest
atives mode
ng, or taking
ay choose w
nce. Other f
orized trips in
ays, distance
commercial/
is pursuing a
dress conge
onal informa
s ge transporta
to be monito
oncerns typica
tions, conflict
Past experien
re safety indic
ovements. Us
be preventat
blems as they
rious crash p
and operatio
al LRTP projec
.
35 Long Rang
ess congesti
apacity shou
s. Additiona
but increase
off‐peak ho
ion is to enc
es of transpo
g transit. As
alking or bic
factors that i
nclude the a
e between
/industrial u
alternatives
stion. Please
tion.
ation planning
ring and adju
ally begin to i
ts, and crashe
ce in Alaska
cators which j
sing these ind
tive and effici
y develop, bu
roblems. Tab
nal triggers w
cts or project
ge Transport
on. One way
uld be done
lly, limiting a
es the time a
urs. Roadwa
courage
ortation
congestion
cycling
influence
availability
ses, safety,
to roadway
e see
g for
stment for
increase in
es before
justify
dicators allow
ent in terms
ut before
le 9 shows
which have led
categories m
tation Plan:
y is to provid
in ways that
access to a m
and distance
ay projects t
w
d to safety m
may be consid
20‐YEA
48 P
$1.3
50
Technical A
de additiona
t fully consid
major highw
e for locals tr
to help addre
mitigation proj
ered before c
AR SNAP
Project
3 Billio
0%
Short-Te
Medium
Long-Ter
ppendix
al capacity fo
der the costs
way at few
rying to acce
ess congesti
jects. With th
capacity level
SHOT
ts
n
27%
23%
rm
m-Term
rm
or
s of
ess
ion
his
ls of
Table 9.
Safety Con
Two land Hvolume segments
Two lane INTERMEDvolume segments
Two land Hvolume intersectio
Multilane volume segments
Multilane volume intersectio
Multilane inefficient volume
Safety Indic
ncern Indic
HIGH >= 16vehicday (
DIATE >=12
HIGH
ons
>= 8,main>=1,5stree
HIGH >= 20
HIGH
ons
>= 60millioentevehicor sixlanesfour thru
HIGH >=10phas
cators
cator D
6,000 cles per vpd)
CCvmVswmea
2,000 vpd CanoFcpc
000 vpd nline with 500 side ets
Ihtmoasc
0,000 vpd Fhfmsc
0,000 on ring cles (MEV), x through s crossing or more lanes
HttfSetRfv
00 vpd split ed
Wet
Description
Common to SaCorridor candidvolumes as higmultilane urbaVolumes can reserious crash cwithout furthemanagement, enforcement, eand spot impro
Can be difficultaccess even if tnot collective sof significant voFrequent driveconflicts can lepatterns througcorridor.
n combinationhigher mainlinethese intersectmeet traffic sigor need for a roalternative, othsee increasing crashes.
Four or more lahigher volumesfurther access management cserious turningconflicts.
High turning detends to conflicthru demand afor limited signSignal movemeexperience lonturnaround timRoundabouts nfeasible at highvolumes.
When approacexceeds 100 vpthru/left turn la
Matanusk
fety dates. Lane h as n arterials. esult in onflicts r access
education, ovements.
t for turning there are side streets olume. way ad to crash ghout the
ns with e volumes, tion can gnal criteria oundabout herwise may intersection
anes at s without
can lead to g crash
emand ct with high nd compete nal timing. ents ger
me. not typically h entering
h demand pd, shared anes can
ka‐Susitna Bo
Mitigation O
Auxiliary turntraffic signalsroundaboutsconsidered. Iattention to eand enforcemalso be consiinterim treat
Auxiliary turnside streets, dspacing and consolidationalternative ro
Auxiliary turntraffic signalsroundaboutsconsidered. Arouting may aoption.
Median sepaand access consolidationwith backageroad circulaticonsideration
Distributing talternate roubackage/fronroads needs considerationWidening othis an alternatlanes.
Separate left from thru trahigher appro
orough 2035
Options PE
n lanes, s, or may be ncreased education ment may dered as ment.
KRHW
n lanes at driveway
n, outing.
PHRH
n lanes, s, or may be Alternative also be an
KRFV
rations
n along e/ frontage ion needs n.
PHHCcRRR
turns to utes, ntage
n. her roads tive to six
PWPS5
turning affic at ach
GW
5 Long Rang
Past ExperiencExamples
Knik‐Goose BayRoad, Parks Highway near Wasilla
Palmer‐WasillaHighway, SeldoRoad, Old GlenHighway
Knik‐Goose BayRoad/Fern StreFairview Loop Vine Road
Palmer‐WasillaHighway – ParkHighway to Cottonwood Ccompared to TRoad, MuldoonRoad, and DeBRoad
Parks/Palmer‐Wasilla HighwaParks HighwayStreet approac50,000 mark
Glenn/Palmer‐Wasilla Highwa
e Transporta
59
ce/
y
a on nn
y eet. Road,
a ks
reek Tudor n Barr
ay and y/Main ching
‐ay
ation Pla
Matanus
60
Safety Con
intersectio
Poor COLLECTOalignment
Poor COLLECTOalignment
RoadwRoadway
safety, ac
the plann
impleme
serve as
backbone
and indu
people a
ska‐Susitna B
ncern Indic
ons
R Overde‐sa
R Plattoffseinter
way Recomy improveme
ccessibility, a
ning process
nt them all.
the blueprin
e of the MSB
stries in the
nd goods to
Borough 203
cator D
dshoLel
rlong cul‐acs
SlhLomprccic
ing for et tee sections
FrssrNmroat
mmendatents are nee
and mobility
s are desirab
This section
nt for roadw
B transporta
MSB. They
move aroun
35 Long Rang
Description
demand servicesignal cycle, unholding up largon other approLeads to signifiend collision inight running.
Sole points of aarger neighborhigher density Lacks efficient options for emmedical servicepolice, transit, routing, detourcommunity intecohesion. Crashncidents can bcompletely.
Future potentiaroundabouts asolutions and nserve both sideroadway whenNegative offsetmajor intersectresult in increaopposing vehicas they competturning space.
tions eded for a va
y. Many of th
ble, but the S
n presents fis
ay improvem
ation system
are used by
nd the regio
ge Transport
e every nduly ge volumes oaches. cant rear ncreases, red
access to rhoods and centers. access, ergency e, fire, incident rs. Reduces eraction, hes and block access
al signals or re expensive need to es of a main possible. ts at future tions can sed cle crashes te for
ariety of reas
he transport
State and the
scally constr
ments over t
. Roads prov
automobile
n.
tation Plan:
Mitigation O
demands. Allsimultaneousmovement ofturns and opthru traffic.
Seek two poiaccess, alternroutes.
Use only postee intersectibusier collectfour legs aligcollectors thapotential for efficient signal/roundaupgrades. Thsignal timing are longer anefficient thantraffic timing
sons, includi
tation impro
e MSB lack s
rained roadw
the next 20 y
vide access t
es, trucks, bu
Technical A
Options PE
ow s f opposing posing
nts of native
HEFS
itive offset ions for tors. Use ned for at have the more
about ru traffic windows
nd more n turning g.
MHDD
ing improvin
ovements ide
sufficient fun
way recomm
years. Roadw
to residence
uses, and bic
ppendix
Past ExperiencExamples
Hospital accessEngstrom RoadFrance Road, Settlers Bay Dr
Midtown – GoHills Drive, ShoDrive/ShennumDrive/Luke Driv
ng congestio
entified thro
nding to
mendations t
ways are the
es, businesse
cycles to allo
ce/
s, d,
rive
lden oreline m ve
on,
ough
to
e
es,
ow
One of th
aging and
has resul
congestio
efficient
There ha
that have
identified
represen
Boga
South
Fern
Vine
Clapp
Seldo
Sulliv
Long
SeldoRoad
Given the
this chap
MSB road
address s
produce
Short TeThe shor
needs th
four year
which gu
2016, fun
found. an
24 DOT&PFpriorities c
he biggest ch
d needs imp
lted in increa
on. The MSB
and safe me
ve been sev
e made signi
d in the MSB
nts nearly $1
rd Road Eas
h Big Lake Ro
Street Conn
Road Upgra
p Mack Road
on Road/Luc
van Road/Ca
Lake Drive R
on Road, Chu
e 20‐year re
pter focus on
dway system
safety, cong
an efficient
erm (2016t‐term proje
at are propo
rs of the plan
uides the exp
nds are com
nd on Figure
F is able to amechange.
hallenges fac
provements.
ased traffic v
B roadway sy
eans of trave
veral project
ificant impro
B’s 2007 LRT
00 million in
t Extension
oad Realignm
ection
de
d Extension
ille Street In
udill Street
Reconstructi
urch Road to
venue forec
n near‐, med
m and provid
estion reduc
and reliable
6–2019) ects are thos
osed for con
n. The proje
penditure of
mitted to th
e 26.24 The to
end the STIP an
cing the roa
Another ma
volumes and
ystem needs
el.
s that have b
ovements to
TP or with re
n investmen
ment
ntersection
Upgrade
ion
o Beverly Lak
cast presente
dium‐, and lo
de the greate
ction, capaci
e roadway sy
se that addre
struction in
cts to be im
f Federal‐aid
he projects s
otal short‐te
nd change prio
Matanusk
dway netwo
ajor issue is t
d has caused
s to be main
been recent
o the MSB ro
cent input fr
ts. Those pro
ke
L
P
K
S
H
T
T
L
ed in Chapte
ong‐term im
est benefit f
ity, connecti
ystem.
ess the critic
the near ter
plemented b
transportat
hown in Tab
erm roadway
orities and sche
ka‐Susitna Bo
ork is that m
that growth
d a need for
tained and i
tly complete
oadway syste
rom the pub
ojects are:
Lu Young Ro
Port Access
Knik River Ro
Sutton Scho
Hawk Lane U
Trunk Road
Trunk Road
Lucus Road
er 4, the roa
provements
for dollars ex
ivity, and ass
cal mobility,
rm. The shor
by DOT&PF
tion funds in
ble 10 Error!
y costs are $
edules if State
orough 2035
uch of the e
in some par
improveme
improved to
ed by the MS
em. These p
blic and agen
oad Paving
Road Paving
oad Spot Im
ol Pathway
Upgrade
Improveme
Extension So
Improvemen
dway recom
s that will he
xpended. Th
set managem
asset mana
rt‐term plan
are identifie
n Alaska. As o
! Reference
$412.8 millio
transportation
5 Long Rang
existing syste
rts of the MS
nts to reduc
o remain an
SB and the St
rojects were
ncies and
g
mprovements
nts
outh
nts
mmendations
elp complete
hese projects
ment needs
gement safe
n covers the
ed in the STI
of Septembe
source not
on.
n needs and
e Transporta
61
em is
SB
ce
tate
e
s
s in
e the
s
to
ety
first
P,
er
ation Pla
Matanus
62
Several p
medium‐
designate
Parks to A
Medium
Table 10
ID Des
1a GlenRenofourthe GGlen
2 GlenProvHighsuscin th
3 Knikdividdistapedestripmult
4 KnikDrivdeverehaSettbut Goo
5 ParkImpundeJr/Sr
6 ParkWidsafe
7a ParkRoadatteLake
8 PoinImprarea
ska‐Susitna B
projects are
‐ or long‐ter
ed with a nu
Arctic Renov
Term Projec
. DOT&PF Sh
cription
nn Highway Movation, 4‐Lanr‐lane arterial wGlenn‐Parks Innn Highway int
nn Highway ‐ Evide erosion prhway between ceptible to eroshe braided sect
k‐Goose Bay Roded four‐lane fance of 6.44 mestrian facilitieps and combinetiple phases.
k‐Goose Bay Rove ‐ Knik‐Gooseelopment activabilitation of Knlers Bay Drive.coordinated wse Bay Road fr
ks Highway/Tarovements ‐ Percrossing to ar High School.
ks Highway MPen Parks Highwty improveme
ks Highway MPd Reconstructindant safety ime Cutoff.
nt MacKenzie Rrovements to ta.
Borough 203
initiated in t
m portion of
umber follow
vation 4‐Lan
ct List, which
hort‐term R
P 34‐42 Reconne) ‐ Upgrade twith frontage rnterchange throtersection.
Erosion Protectrotection at locSutton and Chsion and failuretions of the Ma
oad ‐ Widen Knfacility from Cemiles. Scope inces and safety imed access poin
oad Widening e Bay Road Safevities for the sanik‐Goose Bay This is a State
with, the Federarom Centaur Av
alkeetna Spur Redestrian impraccommodate t
P 43.5‐48.3 ‐ Luway to four lannts, between W
P 48.8 to 52.3 ‐ion ‐ Widen Pamprovements,
Road Improvemthe road leadin
35 Long Rang
the short ter
f the progra
wed by a lett
ne is designa
h is when th
oadway Pro
nstruction (Parhe NHS Glenn roads where apough Palmer to
tion MP 63 ancations along thickaloon where under normaatanuska River
nik‐Goose Bay entaur Avenuecludes separatemprovements, ts. Project will
‐ Vine Road toety Corridor prafety corridor,Road between funded projecally funded provenue to Vine
Road Pedestriarovements, incthe safe access
ucus Road to Pnes, with attenWasilla and Pit
‐ Pittman Roadarks Highway to between Pittm
ment, MP 21.8ng into the Por
ge Transport
rm but are n
m due to fu
ter. For exam
ted 1a in the
e balance of
ojects in the
rks to Arctic Highway to a ppropriate fromo the Arctic/Ol
d MP 64 ‐he Glenn re the road is al flow conditior.
Road to a to Vine Road, e bike and including rumbe built in
o Settlers Bay roject including the n Vine Road anct, separate frooject on Knik‐Road.
an cluding an s to the Su‐Val
Pittman Road ‐dant traffic anttman Road.
d to Big Lake o four lanes, wman Road and
8 to 23 ‐rt MacKenzie
tation Plan:
not funded fo
nding limita
mple, the Gle
e Short Term
f constructio
MSB
Purpose
m ld
CongestiRelief
ons
Safety, AManagem
a
ble CongestiRelief
nd om,
CongestiRelief
lley Safety
‐nd
CongestiRelief
with Big
CongestiRelief
CongestiRelief
Technical A
or construct
tions. These
enn Highway
m Project Lis
on funding is
e Estim
Co(mill
ion $5
Asset ment
$5
ion $8
ion $2
$3
ion $1
ion $4
ion $1
ppendix
tion until the
e projects ar
y MP 34 to 4
st and 1b in t
s proposed.
mated ost lions)
PoteFunSou
56.0 FH
5.6 FH
83.2 FH
27.2 StateFH
3.17 FH
15.1 FH
42.8 FH
1.23 FH
e
e
42
the
ential nding urce
WA
WA
WA
e Bond WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
ID Des
9 SewParkRoadSewa tw
10a VineHollowninclusafe
11a WasNortdirecBay will
12 PalmimmCorrflow
13a DOTconsmeethe HollySeldBoga
14a GlenCanythe a necons
15a Glen‐ Im
16a Glenand
17a ParkCreeroadwill
18 ParkRehaand
19 ParkParkcons
cription
ward Meridian kway between d to a four‐lanard Meridian P
wo‐lane arterial
e Road Improvywood Boulevned portion of Vuding drainagety improveme
silla Fishhook Rth‐South Coupctions in downRoad will be thbe the northbo
mer‐Wasilla Himediate traffic aridor by establiw.
T&PF MSB Intestruct traffic siget need. LocatioLRTP include, bywood/Vine, Son/Church, Seard/Engstrom/
nn Highway Myon ‐ Major reMoose Creek Cew 800‐foot bristructed. Right
nn Highway Mprove alignme
nn Highway Remitigate rock f
ks Highway Briek ‐ The new bdway width at tbe addressed.
ks Highway MPabilitate base aconstruct safe
ks Highway MPks Highway frostruction phase
Parkway ‐ Recthe Palmer‐We arterial with Parkway from l with pedestri
vements – Knikvard ‐ Project wVine Road to ae, repaving, lighnts as necessa
Road/Main Strlet to improventown Wasilla. he southboundound leg.
ghway ‐ Near tand safety issuishing a center
ersection Imprognal or roundaons to be consbut are not limSpruce/Lucille, eldon/Caribou, /Green Forest.
P 53‐56 Reconconstruction oCanyon. The hiidge spanning t of way.
P 84.5‐92 Rehnt and mitigat
ehabilitation Mfall. Design, rig
idge Replacemridges will havthe time of con
P 90‐99 Rehaband surface, wety improveme
P 99‐123.5 Rehm MP 99 to 12es of the paren
onstruct Sewaasilla Highwaya pedestrian tBogard Road tan facilities.
k‐Goose Bay Rowill rehabilitatean improved 2‐hting, pedestriary.
reet (Yenlo Co traffic movemMain Street and leg and Talke
term HSIP projues along this Hr turn lane to im
ovement Progabouts at intersidered over thmited to: HollywPeck/Wasilla FGlenn/Palmer
nstruction ‐Moof the Glenn Highway will be Moose Creek w
abilitation ‐ Loe rock fall. Des
MP 79‐84.5 ‐ Imght of way, util
ment ‐Montanae top widths thnstruction. Ped
ilitation (Trapwiden shouldersents.
habilitation ‐ R23.5. This projent project, Nee
Matanusk
ard Meridian y and Bogard trail. Extend tho Seldon Road
oad to e the State ‐lane facility, an facilities, an
uplet) ‐ Createment in these nd Knik‐Gooseeetna and Yenlo
ject to addressHighway Safetymprove traffic
gram ‐ Assess asections that he entire life ofwood/S. Big LakFishhook, r Fishhook,
oose Creek ghway throughstraightened awill be
ong Lake Sectiosign.
mprove alignmeities.
a and Sheep hat match the destrian faciliti
per Creek) ‐s as appropriat
Rehabilitate theect is one of thed ID 28291.
ka‐Susitna Bo
Purpose
e d as
CongestiRelief
nd
CongestiRelief
e a
e o
CongestiRelief
s y
Safety
and
f ke, Safety
h and
Asset Managem
on Asset Managem
ent Asset Managem
ies
Asset ManagemSafety
te, Asset Managem
e e
Asset Managem
orough 2035
e Estim
Co(mill
ion $2
ion $2
ion $5
$2
$5
ment $3
ment $5
ment $7
ment, $0
ment $2
ment $35
5 Long Rang
mated ost lions)
PoteFunSou
29.3 FH
2.0 FH
5.7 FH
21.8 HS
5.0 HS
3.0 FH
5.0 FH
7.7 FH
0.73 FH
21.0 FH
5.76 FH
e Transporta
63
ential nding urce
WA
WA
WA
SIP
SIP
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
ation Pla
Matanus
64
ID Des
20a ParkParkdrairail c
21 ParkbetwBrid
Phased proje
In additio
complete
11Error!
Table 11
ID D
M1
Seint
M2
HHecc0
M3
NFaIn
M4a
SGSSsdp
M5
EaaP
M6 Eut
ska‐Susitna B
cription
ks Highway MPks Highway betnage and conscrossing at Hur
ks Highway MPween MP 183 age. cts are indicated b
on to the pro
ed by the MS
Reference s
. MSB Short
Description
South Trunk Roextension fromncluding bridgehe bridge over
Hermon Road RHighway to Palexisting roadwaconstruction tocorridor in the W0.8 mile).
Nelson Road ExFairview Loop Rarea south of thnterchange.
Seldon Road UGoose ‐ First phSeldon Road, bStreet, to minoection of Seldodistance, drainapedestrian facil
Engstrom Roadalternatives to and provide a sPalmer Fishhoo
Engstrom Nortupgraded two‐lerminus of Eng
Borough 203
P 163‐183 Rehtween MP 163 truct passing larricane.
P 183‐192 ‐ Reand 192 and re
by the use of a lett
ojects funde
SB in the sho
source not fo
t‐term Road
oad Extension Parks Highwae over the Alasr Wasilla Creek
Reconstructionlmer‐Wasilla Hay to four laneo provide an adWasilla Comm
xtension ‐ ExteRoad, providinghe Trunk Road
pgrade ‐ Wasihase of the proetween Wasillr arterial highwon road has paage, and embalities.
d Congestion Rrelieve congessecond access tok Road.
h Extension tolane major colgstrom Road to
35 Long Rang
abilitation ‐ Reand MP 183 toanes. Includes
construct Parkeplace East For
ter after the proje
ed by DOT&P
ort term. Th
ound. and o
way Project
Phase 2 ‐ Comy to Nelson Roska Railroad ank.
n and ExtensioHighway ‐ Upgrs and new foudditional northercial District (
end Nelson Roag secondary ac‐Parks Highwa
lla Fishhook tooject to reconsa Fishhook andway standardsavement gradeankment issues
Relief – assess vstion on Engstrto Trunk Road
o Tex Al ‐ Constlector from theo its intersectio
ge Transport
ehabilitate theo improve grade separat
ks Highway rk Chulitna Rive
ct ID.
PF, there are
ese locally f
on Figure 26.
ts
mplete oad, nd replacing
on ‐ Parks rade r‐lane ‐south (distance of
ad north to ccess to the y
o Snow truct d Lucille . This , sight s. Includes
various rom Road and or
truct an e northern on with Tex
tation Plan:
Purpose
e
ted Asset Managem
er Asset Managem
e several pro
unded bond
. These proje
Purpose
Congestion Relief
Congestion Relief
Congestion Relief, Safety
Capacity Improvement
Congestion Relief, Safety
Congestion Relief, Safety
Technical A
e Estim
Co(mill
ment $0
ment $0
ojects that sh
d projects ar
ects total $3
EstimaCos
(millio
$5.0
$6.0
$3.0
t $13.
$2.5
$2.5
ppendix
mated ost lions)
PoteFunSou
0.59 FH
0.92 FH
hould be
e shown in T
37.5 million.
ated st ons)
PoteFundSou
0
MSB BSta
LegislGra
0
MSB BCityWas
and/orLegislGra
0
MSB BSta
LegislGra
.0
MSB BSta
LegislGra
5
MSB BSta
LegislGr
5 MSB B
StaLegisl
ential nding urce
WA
WA
Table
ntial ding urce Bond, ate lative ant
Bond, y of silla, r State lative ant
Bond, ate lative ant
Bond, ate lative ant
Bond, ate lative an
Bond, ate lative
ID D
A
M7
TuFD
Description
Al Drive.
Tex Al Road Upupgraded two‐lFishhook Road Drive east to Pa
pgrade and Extlane major colto its existing talmer Fishhook
tension ‐ Constlector from Waterminus. Extek Road.
Matanusk
truct an asilla end Tex Al
ka‐Susitna Bo
Purpose
Congestion Relief, Safety
orough 2035
EstimaCos
(millio
$5.5
5 Long Rang
ated st ons)
PoteFundSouGra
5
MSB BSta
LegislGra
e Transporta
65
ntial ding urce ant
Bond, ate lative ant
ation Pla
M
6
F
Matanuska‐Susi
66
Figure 26. Short
itna Borough 20
t‐term Roadway
035 Long Range
y Recommenda
Transportation
ations
n Plan: Technical Appendix
The MSB
the pote
at $2.5 m
proposed
MSB
Trans
MSB
MSB
bridg
MSB
to MS
The MSB
functioni
structure
Alaska De
organizat
program
annually
MSB vote
State. Th
these pro
Access R
MediumThe med
mobility
12Error!
are $342
Matanuska‐
B also has the
ntial MSB ro
million in 201
d to be fund
Recurring P
sit, Reconna
Substandar
Substandar
ges
Asset Mana
SB owned co
B also has its
ing culverts t
e. This progr
epartment o
tions. The lo
will occur a
.
ers passed a
e MSB will c
ojects. Neith
oad Bond pa
m Term (2ium‐term el
and safety n
Reference s
.66 million.
‐Susitna Bor
e following r
oad bonds to
18, $4.0 milli
ed for 1 or 2
Projects – Pl
issance Engi
rd Road Imp
rd Bridge Im
agement Pro
ollectors and
annual Fish
that hinder f
am is funded
of Fish and G
ocal match is
nnually thro
2013 Schoo
continue to a
her the Fish
ackage are i
2020–2025ements are
needs. The D
source not fo
These proje
rough 2035 L
recurring pro
o be issued in
ion in 2022,
2 years using
anning Stud
ineering
rovements –
mprovement
ogram – Obt
d arterials
Passage Pro
fish passage
d through gr
Game, the M
s covered wi
oughout the
ol Access Ro
attempt to s
Passage Pro
included in t
5) those that a
DOT&PF med
ound.. The t
cts are show
Long Range T
ograms that
n 2018, 2022
and $6.0 m
g bond reven
dies, Safe Ro
– Address va
ts – Address
tain funding
ogram, whic
e with either
rants from t
Mat‐Su Salmo
th MSB non
20‐year life
oad Bond tha
secure the re
ogram nor th
the MSB fisc
are higher‐p
dium‐term ro
total roadwa
wn on Figure
Transportat
are propose
2, and 2026
illion in 2026
nues, and in
utes to Scho
arious MSB o
various MSB
to do major
ch funds the
r an improve
he U.S. Fish
on Partnersh
‐bond reven
of the LRTP
at was only p
emaining $1
he State ma
cally constra
riority and a
oadway proj
ay costs for t
e 27.
tion Plan: Te
ed to be fun
. These prog
6. These pro
clude:
ools, Traffic C
owned subs
B owned sub
r maintenan
e replacemen
ed culvert or
and Wildlife
hip, or other
nues. It is est
P at a cost of
partially mat
14 million in
tch for the 2
ained progra
address som
jects are sho
these mediu
chnical Appe
ded as part
grams are fu
ograms are
Calming, Tra
tandard roa
bstandard
ce or upgrad
nt of non‐
r a bridge
e Service, th
conservatio
timated that
f $1 million
tched by the
State funds
2013 School
am.
e of the MS
own in Table
um‐term pro
endix
67
of
nded
ails,
ds
des
e
on
t this
e
for
l
Bs
e
ojects
Matanus
68
Table 12
ID D
1b GReGwthin
7b PaLalaPi
9b SeSebea SeRo
10b VHowfafa
11b WComStle
13b DAsinovtoPeG
14b GCathstCr
17b PaCrthfa
ska‐Susitna B
. DOT&PF M
escription
lenn Highway enovation, 4‐Llenn Highway
where appropriahrough Palmer ntersection.
arks Highway ake Road Recones, with attenittman Road an
eward Meridiaeldon Road – etween the Pafour‐lane arteeward Meridiaoad as a two‐la
ine Road Improllywood Bouwned portion oacility, includinacilities, and sa
Wasilla Fishhooonstruct the N
movement in thtreet and Knik‐eg and Talkeetn
OT&PF MSB Inssess and consntersections thver the entire lo: Hollywood/Seck/Wasilla Fislenn/Palmer F
lenn Highway anyon ‐ Major hrough the Motraightened anreek will be co
arks Highway reek ‐ The newhe roadway widacilities will be
Borough 203
Medium‐term
MP 34‐42 RecLane) ‐ Completo a four‐lane ate from the Gto the Arctic/O
MP 48.8 to 52onstruction ‐ Wndant safety imnd Big Lake Cu
an Parkway – PReconstruct Selmer‐Wasilla Hrial with a pedn Parkway fromane arterial wit
rovements ‐ Knlevard ‐ Projecof Vine Road tog drainage, repfety improvem
ok Road/Main orth‐South Cohese directions‐Goose Bay Rona and Yenlo w
ntersection Imstruct traffic sigat meet need. life of the LRTPS. Big Lake, Holshhook, Seldonishhook, Boga
MP 53‐56 Recreconstruction
oose Creek Cand a new 800‐fonstructed.
Bridge Replacew bridges will hdth at the timeaddressed.
35 Long Rang
m Roadway
construction (Pete the upgradearterial with frGlenn‐Parks IntOld Glenn High
.3 ‐ Pittman RoWiden Parks Higmprovements, toff.
Palmer‐Wasillaeward MeridiaHighway and Boestrian trail. Exm Bogard Roadth pedestrian f
nik‐Goose Bay ct will rehabilito an improvedpaving, lightingments as neces
Street (Yenlo Cuplet to impro in downtown ad will be the swill be the nort
provement Prgnal or roundaLocations to bP include, but allywood/Vine, n/Church, Seldord/Engstrom/G
construction ‐Mn of the Glenn nyon. The highwoot bridge spa
ement ‐Montahave top widthe of constructio
ge Transport
Projects in t
Parks to Arctic e the NHS rontage roads terchange hway
oad to Big ghway to 4 between
a Highway to n Parkway ogard Road to xtend the d to Seldon facilities.
Road to ate the State two‐lane g, pedestrian sary.
Couplet) ‐ove traffic Wasilla. Main southbound hbound leg.
rogram ‐abouts at be considered are not limitedSpruce/Lucilleon/Caribou, Green Forest.
Moose Creek Highway way will be nning Moose
ana and Sheeps that match on. Pedestrian
tation Plan:
the MSB
Purpose
CongestionRelief
CongestionRelief
CongestionRelief
CongestionRelief
CongestionRelief
d e,
Safety
Asset Managem
p
n
Asset Manageme
Safety
Technical A
EstimaCos
(millio
n $27
n $15.
n $13
n $8.
n $27
$15
ment $58
ent, $25.
ppendix
ated st ons)
PoteFundSou
.3 FHW
50 FHW
.4 FHW
5 FHW
.1 FHW
.0 HS
.0 FHW
06 FHW
ential ding urce
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
SIP
WA
WA
ID D
20b Pathimgr
22a KnWimap
23a PaHRoWpr
24 G‐ DMacthle
25 O‐ E
OPran
Phased projeProjects that
Matanuska‐
escription
arks Highway he Parks Highwmprove drainagrade separated
nik‐Goose BayWiden to 4 lanemprovements approximately 3
arks Highway Aighway/Sewaroad ‐ Construc
Wasilla to movereservation is t
lenn Parks InteDevelop additi
Medical Center,ccess point. Dehe Glenn Highweft turn ingress
ld Glenn HighwExpand to a fiv
ngoing DOT&Programs: Annund HSIP projeccts are indicated bare not completed
‐Susitna Bor
MP 163‐183 Rway between Mge and construd rail crossing a
y Road ‐ Settleres with approprand pedestrian3 miles). Design
Alternative Cord Meridian Pact a controlled e through traffithe highest pri
erchange ‐ Hoonal accesses , which is curreevelop Old Matway. Open Duc and egress.
way ‐ New Gleve‐lane section
PF Asset Manaual funding for ts estimated aby the use of a lettd by 2035 are sho
rough 2035 L
ehabilitation ‐MP 163 and MPuct passing laneat Hurricane.
rs Bay to Southriate intersectin amenities (disn, ROW, Utilitie
orridor – Segmarkway to Knikaccess highwaic around Wasority.
spital Access Ito the Mat Su ently only servet Road as a frochess Drive at T
enn Highway ton.
agement and Hfuture asset mt $4.0 million ater after the projewn in italics. Addit
Long Range T
‐ Rehabilitate P 183 to es. Construct a
h Alix Drive ‐ion stance of es
ent 1 Parks k‐Goose Bay ay south of illa. Corridor
mprovementsRegional ed by a single ntage road to Trunk Road to
o Airport Road
HSIP management annually. ct ID. tional funding will
Transportat
Purpose
a Asset Manageme
CongestionRelief
CongestionRelief
s
Safety/Acc
d CongestionRelief
Asset Managemeand Safety
l be required to co
tion Plan: Te
EstimaCos
(millio
ent $44
n $8.
n $12
cess $12
n $12.
ent y
$24
omplete these pro
chnical Appe
ated st ons)
PoteFundSou
.0 FHW
2 FHW
.6 FHWA
.0 HS
00 Sta
.0 FHWA
ojects.
endix
69
ential ding urce
WA
WA
A/State
SIP
ate
A/HSIP
M
7
F
Matanuska‐Susi
70
Figure 27. Medi
itna Borough 20
ium‐ and Long‐t
035 Long Range
term Roadway
Transportation
Recommendat
n Plan: Technica
ions
l Appendix
Projects
source n
Table 13
ID D
M4b
UPhFistdi
M8 FeRoso
M9 SeprHi
M10
JediFith
M11 MfroHi
M12
HeExdiis
M13 Kacoco
M14
SethSeHa
Matanuska‐
to be funded
ot found.. T
. MSB Medi
escription
pgrade Seldonhase 2 of the reshhook and Luandards. This sstance, draina
ern Street ‐ Upoad and Fairvieouth collector r
eldon Road ‐ Broject completighway to Pittm
ensen Road Extrect access froshhook Road, he Parks Highw
Museum Drive Eontage road coighway.
emmer Northextend Hemmerrect connectioneeded.
atherine Driveonnect Mid‐Towonstructed med
ettlers Bay Drivhese two routeettlers Bay Devayfield Drive.
Susitna Boro
d by the MS
These project
um‐term Ro
n Road from Sneconstruction ucille Street to section of Seldge, embankme
pgrade Fern Strew Loop Road,route.
Beverly Lake Roes the Bogard‐man Road.
tension to Soaom the growingallowing more
way.
Extension ‐ Weonnections to t
ern Extension r Road north toon. The distanc
e Connection town Estates to Tdian break and
ve Extension tes to allow for svelopment to F
ough 2035 L
B in the med
ts total $36
oadway Proj
now Goose to of Seldon Roadmajor collectodon Road has gent, and failing
reet between K creating an up
oad to Pittman‐Seldon corrido
apstone Road g Soapstone Ro direct access t
est to Vine Roathe south side
to Bogard Roao Bogard Road ce less than 1/4
o Trunk Road ‐Trunk Road at d turn pockets
to S. Hayfield Dsecondary acceFairview Loop R
Long Range T
dium term a
million.
jects
Lucille Street ‐d between Waor or higher grade, sight g pavement iss
Knik‐Goose Baypgraded north
n Road ‐ This or from the Gle
‐ This will provoad area to Pato Trunk Road
ad ‐ Provides loof the Parks
ad East Extensito provide a m4 mile, right of
‐ This project wthe already on Trunk Road
Drive – Connecess from the Road via South
Transportati
are shown in
Purp
‐asilla
ues.
Capaciand CongesRelief
y ‐
CongesRelief aConnec
enn Capaciand Sa
vide lmer and
Capaciand Sa
ocal CongesRelief aSafety
ion ‐more f way
Connec
will
d.
Connecand Sa
ct
h Connecand Sa
on Plan : Te
n Table 13Err
pose Estim
Co(mill
ty
stion $1
stion and ctivity
$6
ty fety
$7
ty fety
$1
stion and $4
ctivity $0
ctivity fety
$1
ctivity fety
$3
chnical Appe
ror! Referen
mated ost ions)
PoteFunSou
3.0
MSB St
LegisGr
6.0
MSB St
LegisGr
7.0
MSB St
LegisGr
1.5
MSB St
LegisGr
4.0
MSB St
LegisGr
0.5
MSB St
LegisGr
1.0
MSB St
LegisGr
.00
MSB St
LegisGr
endix
71
nce
ential nding urce
Bond, ate slative rant
Bond, ate slative rant
Bond, ate slative rant
Bond, ate slative rant
Bond, ate slative rant
Bond, ate slative rant
Bond, ate slative rant
Bond, ate slative rant
Matanus
72
Long TeThe long‐
projects
$634.0 m
Table 14
ID De
10c
VinHigVinrepim
16b Glean
22b Knto
23b PaHigCo
26 PaMewi
27 SoReDrwit
28 BigRefac
29 Boto
30 Paa fBa
31 PaBa
OnAnest
Phased projeProjects that
ska‐Susitna B
erm (2023‐term eleme
are shown in
million. These
. DOT&PF Lo
escription
ne Road Improghway ‐ Projecne Road to an paving, lightingprovements as
enn Highway Rd mitigate roc
nik‐Goose Bay 4 Lanes Const
rks Highway Aghway/Sewardonstruction
lmer‐Wasilla Heyers Widen toden Cottonwo
uth Big Lake Rehabilitation ‐ ive through thth appropriate
g Lake Road ‐ Neconstruction ‐cility with pede
ogard Road Betaccommodate
lmer‐Wasilla Hfive‐lane facilityy Road.
rks Highway Aay Road to Vine
ngoing DOT&Pnnual funding ftimated at $8.5cts are indicated bare not completed
Borough 203
3–2035) ents address
n Table 14. T
e projects ar
ong‐Term Ro
ovements – Hoct will rehabilitimproved fourg, pedestrian fas necessary.
Rehabilitation k fall.
Road ‐ Settlerstruction
Alternative Cord Meridian to
Highway: Sewao 5 lanes – Addod Creek Bridg
Road ‐ North ShRehabilitate Bie Big Lake Towe pedestrian am
North Shore D‐ Reconstruct Bestrian amenit
tween Seldon e increased tra
Highway Exteny between the
Alternative Core Road: Design
F Asset Managfor future asset5 million annuby the use of a lettd by 2035 are sho
35 Long Rang
s some of the
The total roa
re shown on
oadway Pro
ollywood Bouletate the MSB or‐lane facility, iacilities, and sa
MP 79‐84.5 ‐
s Bay to South
rridor SegmenKnik‐Goose Ba
ard Meridian Pd two additionge to five lanes
hore Drive to Hig Lake Road frwn Center to Hmenities.
rive to Parks HBig Lake Road ties.
and Trunk ‐ Wffic with pedes
nsion Reconstre Parks Highwa
rridor Segmenn, ROW, Utiliti
gement and Ht managementally. ter after the projewn in italics. Addit
ge Transport
e remaining
adway costs
Figure 27, a
ojects
evard to Parksowned portion ncluding drainafety
Improve alignm
h Alix Drive Wi
t I: Parks ay Road:
Parkway to Frenal travel laness.
Hollywood Roarom North Shoollywood Road
Highway to a four‐lane
Widen to four lastrian facilities
ruction ‐ Expany and Knik‐Go
t 2: Knik‐Gooses , Constructi
SIP Programs: t and HSIP proj
ct ID. tional funding will
tation Plan:
mobility an
for the DOT
above.
Pur
s of
nage,
CongeRelief, ConneSafety
ment Asset Manag
den CongeRelief
CongeRelief
ed s and
CongeRelief
ad ore d
Asset Manag
CongeRelief
anes .
CongeRelief Capaci
nd to ose
CongeRelief Capaci
se ion
CongeRelief
jects
Asset Managand Sa
l be required to co
Technical A
d safety nee
T&PF long‐te
pose Estd
(mi
stion ectivity,
$
gement $
stion $3
stion $1
stion $3
gement $
stion $
stion
ity $
stion
ity$
stion $1
gement afety
$
omplete these pro
ppendix
eds. The road
erm project
imateCost llions)
PotFuSo
33.5 F
36.3 F
37.80 F
32.40 FHW
30.00 F
$5.0 S
$5.0 F
49.0 S
20.0 F
160.0 FHW
85.0 FHW
ojects.
dway
is
tential nding ource
HWA
HWA
HWA
WA/State
HWA
State
HWA
State
HWA
WA/State
WA/HSIP
Projects
source n
Table 15
ID De
M15
FeltHigfroHig
M16
LucUpgdraam
M17
Valnewto iWa
M18
LucLansecped
IllustratDue to th
to includ
constrain
Expan
Upgr
Johns
Pave
Wide
Wide
Expan
to six
Reco
West
Matanuska‐
to be funded
ot found. an
. MSB Long‐
scription
ton Road Exteghway ‐ Two‐lam the Palmer‐gh School. cille Street ‐ Spgrade Lucille Stainage, intersecenities (distanlley Pathways w road from Vantersect with tasilla Highway a
cille Street ‐ Pane Upgrade ‐ Uction with draindestrian ameni
tive Projeche future sys
e several ne
ned plan are
nd the Glenn
ade Trunk R
son Road Up
Hatcher Pas
en Knik‐Goos
en Knik‐Goos
nd the Parks
x lanes
nstruction o
t Carmel Driv
Susitna Boro
d by the MS
nd Figure 27
‐term Roadw
nsion ‐ Arctic/ane extension tWasilla Highw
pruce to Seldontreet to a fourction improvemce of 1.0 mile)School Accessalley Pathwaysthe signalized and Hemmer R
arks Highway tUpgrade Lucillenage, intersectities (distance
cts stem needs
eeded impro
:
n Highway fr
oad Intercha
pgrade and E
ss Road, MP
se Bay Road
se Bay Road
s Highway fr
of Pittman Ro
ve Reconstru
ough 2035 L
B in the long
, above. The
way Projects
/Bogard to Palto provide nortay to Arctic/Bo
n (MSB) 4‐Lane‐lane rural secments, and ped. Improvements at the end of intersection atRoad.
to Spruce (City Street to a foution improvemof 1.25 miles).
and limited
vements. Am
rom Eklutna
ange to acco
Extension to
18 to 20
from Centa
from Alix Dr
om the Glen
oad
uction
Long Range T
g term are s
e long‐term
s
mer‐Wasilla th‐south accesogard and Palm
e Upgrade ‐tion with destrian
t ‐ Construct a France Road et the Palmer‐
y of Wasilla) 4‐ur‐lane urban ents, and
financial res
mong the pr
to the Glen
ommodate w
Knik‐Goose
ur to Settler
rive to Point
nn/Parks Inte
Transportati
hown in Tab
MSB funded
Purpo
ss mer
CongestRelief
CongestRelief
east CongestRelief
‐CongestRelief
sources, the
rojects not in
nn/Parks Inte
westbound l
e Bay Road
rs Bay Drive
t MacKenzie
erchange to
on Plan : Te
ble 15Error!
d projects to
ose Estim
Co(mill
tion $8
tion $7
tion $9
tion $1
re was not s
ncluded in th
erchange to
eft turn mov
to six lanes
Road to fou
o Seward Me
chnical Appe
Reference
otal $34 milli
mated ost ions)
PoteFunSou
8.0
MSB St
LegisGr
7.0
MSB St
LegisGr
9.0
MSB St
LegisGr
0.0
MSB CitWaandSt
LegisGr
sufficient fun
his fiscally
six lanes
vements
ur lanes
eridian Parkw
endix
73
on.
ential nding urce Bond, ate slative rant Bond, ate slative rant Bond, ate slative rant Bond, ty of silla, d/or ate slative rant
nding
way
Matanus
74
Point
facilit
Knik A
Boga
Inters
Sewa
Ayshi
New
Footh
Oilwe
Smith
West
Sylva
West
South
Seldo
Point
Burm
to W
Several o
http://ww
found in
http://ww
ska‐Susitna B
t MacKenzie
ty
Arm Crossin
rd/Seldon R
section
ard Meridian
ire Road to L
Big Lake Col
hills Drive Re
ell Road Upg
h Road Reco
t Susitna Par
n Road to H
t Susitna Acc
h Big Lake Ro
on Road Exte
t MacKenzie
ma Road Con
est Susitna P
other identif
ww.dot.stat
their Capita
ww.matsugo
Borough 203
Road – Knik
g Frontage R
oads Corrido
n – South Ext
Little Su Lan
llector Road
econstructio
grade – Pete
onstruction a
rkway Extens
ollywood Up
cess Develop
oad Town Ce
ension – Pitt
Road – Port
struction – U
Parkway
fied DOT&PF
e.ak.us/stwd
l Improveme
ov.us/cip.
35 Long Rang
k‐Goose Bay
Roads at Por
or – 4‐Lane
tension to Fa
ding Improv
– North Sho
on
rsville Road
and Pedestri
sion to Fish C
pgrade and
pment Progr
enter Realig
tman Road to
t MacKenzie
Upgrade and
F project nee
dplng/cip/st
ent Program
ge Transport
Road to Ays
rt MacKenzie
Upgrade fro
airview Loop
vements
ore to West
to Moose C
an Pathway
Creek Agricu
Extension So
ram
nment
o Parks High
e to Ayshire R
d Realign Bu
eds can be fo
tip/needslist
m, which is av
tation Plan:
shire Recons
e Access
om New Trun
p
Susitna Park
Creek Bridge
ultural Area
outh to Holly
hway
Rehabilitatio
rma Road fr
ound at
t/index.cfm.
vailable onli
Technical A
struction up
nk to Bogard
kway
ywood Drive
on
rom Point M
The MSB ne
ine at
ppendix
pgraded two‐
d/Seldon
e
MacKenzie Ro
eeds list can
‐lane
oad
be
Matanuska‐
Susitna Boroough 2035 L
This page int
Long Range T
tentionally lef
Transportati
ft blank.
on Plan : Te
chnical Appeendix
75
Matanus
76
ska‐Susitna B
Borough 203
Str
35 Long Rang
rateg
ge Transport
gy D
tation Plan:
CDeve
Technical A
haplopm
ppendix
ter 6men
6t
This page int
tentionally lefft blank.
77
Matanus
78
ChaptThis chap
improvem
address t
additiona
stakehold
IdentifiThe Alter
transport
strategie
participa
transit, b
system m
the gene
the publi
identified
summari
ska‐Susitna B
er 6 Transpter describe
ment strateg
the MSB’s tr
al strategies
der meeting
cation of rnative Tran
tation issues
es that other
nts were div
bicycle/pede
management
ral public to
ic, the worki
d and evalua
zes the strat
Borough 203
sportatioes the proce
gies to meet
ransportatio
came from
gs, workshop
Alternativsportation a
s facing the
r communitie
vided into gr
strian, and t
t solutions (T
o provide fee
ing group me
ated for imp
tegy identifi
Alternative
35 Long Rang
on Improvesses used to
t the LRTP’s
n needs, oth
the MSB com
ps, and onlin
ves to Roaand Land Use
MSB and ga
es are using
roups and as
transportatio
TSM) the MS
edback on th
eeting, and t
rovements t
cation and e
e Transporta
ge Transport
vement So identify an
goals. While
her improve
mmunity an
ne feedback
adway Ime Workshop
ve participa
to solve tra
sked to prov
on demand
SB should pu
hese alternat
the technica
that should b
evaluation p
ation and La
tation Plan:
Strategiesnd develop o
e road impro
ments are a
nd residents
as well as te
mprovemep, held in Apr
nts an overv
nsportation
vide input on
managemen
ursue. An on
tive strategi
al analysis, a
be impleme
rocess.
and Use Wo
Technical A
s other transpo
ovements ar
lso needed.
through pub
echnical ana
ents ril 2016, rev
view of non‐
problems. W
n what type
nt (TDM)/tra
nline open h
es. Based on
alternative st
nted by the
rkshop
ppendix
ortation
e needed to
Ideas for th
blic meeting
lysis.
iewed the
‐roadway
Workshop
of land use,
ansportation
ouse allowe
n feedback f
trategies we
MSB. Figure
o
hese
gs,
n
ed
from
ere
e 28
Figure 28
EvaluaThe cand
evaluatio
objective
support t
goals and
The scori
project s
Techn
Degre
overa
Feed
Cons
deve
Requ
Availa
RecomThe resu
8. Strategy I
tion didate strate
on. The work
es of the MS
the improve
d objectives,
ing process u
election and
nical evaluat
ee to which
all system im
back from th
ideration of
lopment vie
ired by agen
able funding
mmendatiolting recomm
Ma
dentificatio
egies were fu
king group sc
B 2035 LRTP
ement. The t
, the extent
used to eval
d inclusion. I
tion scoring
candidate st
mprovement
he public an
which strate
wpoint
ncy or regula
g
ons mended stra
atanuska‐Su
n and Evalu
urther assess
cored each s
P, the extent
echnical eva
of the impro
uate the can
mprovemen
trategies are
ts
d stakeholde
egies were i
ation
ategies are d
sitna Boroug
ation Proces
sed by a wor
strategy on t
t of the strat
aluation was
ovement’s b
ndidate strat
nts were sele
e compleme
ers
mplementab
described in
gh 2035 Lon
ss
rking group
their compa
tegy’s benef
s scored base
benefits, and
tegy was no
ected based
entary with o
ble from a p
Chapter 2 o
ng Range Tra
process and
atibility with
fits, and thei
ed on comp
d its technica
ot the only cr
on several f
other projec
public suppo
f the LRTP.
ansportation
d a technical
the goals an
r willingness
atibility with
al feasibility.
riterion for
factors inclu
ts to create
rt and proje
n Plan
79
nd
s to
h
.
uding:
ct
80
Airr TraCh
ansphaptorta
ter 7ation
7n
Maatanuska‐Su
This page int
sitna Boroug
tentionally lef
gh 2035 Lon
ft blank.
ng Range Tra
ansportationn Plan
81
Matanus
82
ChaptThe MSB
generate
sales wit
areas of t
the MSB
reported
1,472 in
MSB doe
additiona
System P
ExistingThere are
DOT&PF
schedule
taxi oper
Aviation
heliports
generally
are unreg
Several o
aircraft a
25 NortherPrepared fhttps://ww&id=1449926 Accordinhttp://regi27 MSB Ass28 An airstrgenerally h29 In this LRand/or oth
ska‐Susitna B
er 7 Air TB has the hig
es approxima
hin the MSB
the MSB. W
hosts an ave
d as persona
201726. This
es not levy an
al informatio
Plan (RASP).
g Air Transe currently e
and two mu
ed commerci
rations. Ther
Administrat
s are private
y concentrat
gistered wit
of these airp
and are amo
rn Economics. for the MSB. Avww.matsugov.u9 ng to the FAA Ristry.faa.gov/a
sessor’s office, rip is an airplanhas one or morRTP, airpark reher facilities ad
Borough 203
Transporthest concen
ately 380 job
B25 and provi
ith an estim
erage of one
l property w
increase of
n aviation pe
on on air tra
sportationeight public a
unicipal airpo
ial airline op
re are also 3
tion (FAA). M
. The MSB is
ted in reside
h the FAA. T
arks, such as
ng the busie
2016. Economvailable on theus/plans?task=
Registry availabircraftinquiry/s
8/2014. ne landing facilre runway(s) anfers to an airpdjacent to a sha
35 Long Rang
tation ntration of pu
bs, $21 millio
ides the only
ated Boroug
e airplane fo
within the MS
3.3 percent
ersonal prop
nsportation
n Facilitiesairports with
orts (see Fig
perations. Th
4 seaplane b
Most seaplan
s also home
ntial areas w
There are als
s Wolf Lake
est airports i
mic Contributioe internet at: =download&co
ble on the intestatecounty_in
lity that typicand more facilitort owned by aared private ru
ge Transport
ublic and pri
on in labor i
y reliable ye
gh populatio
or every 68 r
SB has incre
per year is l
perty tax on
in the MSB,
s hin the MSB
gure 29 and T
he two muni
bases and ni
ne bases are
to more tha
with road ac
so approxima
and Anderso
n the MSB.
ns of Matanus
ollection=plan_
rnet at: nquiry.aspx
lly has one runties such as an a group of privunway.
tation Plan:
ivate airport
ncome, and
ar‐round me
on of 100,17
esidents. Th
ased from a
likely to con
aircraft regi
, please see
B that are un
Table 16). N
cipal and th
ine heliports
public dom
n 200 privat
cess. Nearly
ately 15 priv
on Lake, hav
ska‐Susitna Bor
_documents&x
nway and only air traffic contvate property o
Technical A
ts in the nat
$17.5 millio
eans of acce
8, and almo
he number o
pproximate
tinue as the
istered in th
the Regiona
der the juris
one have re
ree state air
s registered
ain but man
te airports/a
y one‐third o
vate airparks
ve more tha
rough Airports
xi=3&file=plan_
basic facilitiestrol tower, or powners with ho
ppendix
ion. Aviation
on in busines
ess to remote
st 1,500 airc
of aircraft
ly 500 in 198
e MSB grows
e Borough.2
al Aviation
sdiction of
egularly
rports have a
with the Fed
ny of the
airstrips28,
of these airpo
s29 in the MS
n 100 based
s. January 2016
_document_up
s, while an airppassenger termomes, hangars
n
ss
e
craft,
84 to
s. The 7 For
air
deral
orts
SB.
d
6.
pload
port minal. s,
Figure 29
Table 16
Airport
Big Lake Goose BaLake LouiPalmer Sheep MoSkwentnaSummit TalkeetnaWasilla Willow
IFR= InstrumeVOR=VHF OmSource: http:/
Matanuska‐
9. Public Air
. MSB Public
O
Dy Dse D
ountain Da D
Da D
Dent Flight Rules; PAmni‐directional Rad//www.gcr1.com/
‐Susitna Bor
ports in the
c Airports
Owner Le
DOT&PF 2DOT&PF 3DOT&PF 3City 6
DOT&PF 2DOT&PF 3DOT&PF 3DOT&PF 3City 3
DOT&PF 4API= Precision Appdio Range /5010web/ and htt
rough 2035 L
MSB
ength (ft.)
Wid(ft
2,435 73,000 73,000 66,009 102,270 63,400 73,814 83,500 73,700 7
4,400 7proach Path Indica
tp://www.dot.stat
Long Range T
dth t.)
Surfa
70 Grav75 Grav60 Grav00 Asph60 Grav75 Grav80 Grav75 Asph75 Asph
75 Gravator; VASI= Visual
te.ak.us/stwdav/d
Transportat
ace A
Navivel vel vel halt Vvel vel vel halt halt
vel Approach Slope In
documents/
tion Plan: Te
Approach igation Aids VOR None None
VASI/PAPI None None None VASI PAPI
None ndicator; VFR= Vis
chnical Appe
Instrumenor Visua
IFR VFR VFR IFR VFR VFR VFR IFR IFR
VFR sual Flight Rules;
endix
83
nt l
Matanus
84
Public AThe publ
Big La
Goos
Lake
Shee
Skwe
Summ
Talke
Willo
DOT&PF
airports h
manned
(approxim
facilities
Integrate
Federal f
airport m
nearest N
safe and
Big LakeThe Big L
runway (
wide). Th
by pilot c
source is
broadcas
runway f
the winte
maintain
planes on
recognize
is used re
summer
the site o
ska‐Susitna B
Airports unic airport fac
ake Airport;
e Bay Airpor
Louise Airpo
p Mountain
entna Airport
mit Airport;
eetna Airport
ow Airport.
is responsib
has an Air Tr
Flight Servic
mately 30,00
(Sheep Mou
ed Airport Sy
funding for a
must have at
NPAIS airpor
efficient air
e Airport Lake Airport
2,435 feet lo
he airport lig
control, and
via transcri
st. There is n
for planes eq
er, although
ned when po
n skis. Big La
ed seaplane
egularly by a
and winter.
of approxima
Borough 203
der DOT&Pcilities unde
rt;
ort;
Airport;
t;
t; and
ble for the m
raffic Contro
ce Station is
00 operation
untain and S
ystems (NPIA
airport impro
least 10 loc
rt, and be loc
port facilitie
has one gra
ong and 70 f
ghting is ope
the weathe
bed weathe
no designate
quipped with
a snow pac
ossible to allo
ake is not a
base, but th
airplanes in b
Big Lake Air
ately 20,000
35 Long Rang
PF Jurisdicr DOT&PF ju
maintenance
ol Tower. The
the Talkeetn
ns/year) of t
ummit) are
AS). Inclusio
ovements. T
ally owned b
cated at a si
es.
vel
feet
erated
r data
r
ed
h skis in
k is
ow for
he lake
both
rport is
0
ge Transport
tion urisdiction in
and operati
e only airpo
na Airport, w
the eight airp
included in t
n in the NPIA
To be conside
based aircra
te that can b
Big Lake Airp
tation Plan:
n the MSB in
ons of these
rt under DO
which also h
ports. All bu
the 2015‐20
AS is a requi
ered for incl
aft, be no clo
be expanded
port
Technical A
nclude:
e airports. N
OT&PF jurisd
as the highe
t two of the
019 National
irement for
lusion in the
oser than 20
d and impro
ppendix
one of these
iction with a
est activity le
e DOT&PF‐ow
Plan of
receiving
e NPAIS, an
miles from
oved to provi
e
a
evel
wned
the
ide
aircraft o
obstructi
flood mit
August 2
Goose The Goos
lighting is
designate
pack is m
performe
runway s
the DOT&
Lake LoThe Lake
approxim
available
recognize
since 200
proposed
Sheep MThe Shee
There is n
seaplane
condition
This airpo
30 All estimat https://t31 DOT&PFAvailable a32 DOT&PFAvailable a33 The offic
Matanuska‐
operations a
ions (e.g., br
tigation has
016, Big Lak
Bay Airporse Bay Airpo
s operated v
ed facilities
maintained w
ed on this fa
surface was
&PF 6‐year s
ouise Airpoe Louise Airp
mately 300 a
e, and the air
ed as a priva
07, and the r
d for funding
Mountain Aep Mountain
no lighting o
es, and no St
n is not mon
ort experien
mates of airporttaf.faa.gov/ F. 2015. Alaska at http://dot.alF. 2015. Alaska at http://dot.alcial runway wid
‐Susitna Bor
nnually30. Th
rush, small t
been identif
ke Airport wa
rt ort has one g
via pilot cont
to accommo
when possibl
cility, and th
rehabilitated
spending pla
ort ort has a gra
ircraft opera
rport is not m
ate seaplane
runway surfa
g in the DOT
Airport n Airport has
or weather d
ate mainten
nitored, and
nces minima
t operations in
DOT&PF Ruralaska.gov/stwdDOT&PF Ruralaska.gov/stwddth is 10 feet b
rough 2035 L
he runway s
rees) were r
fied by DOT&
as starting a
gravel runwa
trol, and the
odate seapla
e to allow fo
here are app
d in 2011. N
an31.
avel runway
ations annua
maintained i
e base. The a
ace was reha
T&PF 6‐year
s one gravel/
data source a
nance is perf
pilots are ad
l traffic, with
n this chapter a
l Airport Systedav/documentl Airport Systedav/documentbut there is a c
Long Range T
urface was r
removed in 2
&PF, but fun
n update to
ay (3,000 fee
ere is no wea
anes or plane
or planes on
proximately
o further ne
(3,000 feet
ally. There is
in the winte
airport has b
abilitated in
spending pla
/dirt runway
available. Th
formed on th
dvised to per
h roughly 12
are based on th
m Draft FFY ’1s/Rural_Airporm Draft FFY ’1s/Rural_Airporleared area tha
Transportat
rehabilitated
2013. The ne
nding is curre
their airpor
et long and 7
ather data so
es equipped
n skis. There
5,500 annua
eeds have be
long and 60
s no lighting
r. Evergreen
been almost
2012. No fu
an32.
y (2,270 feet
he airport do
he airport or
rform a visu
20 operation
he 2014 FAA Te
1—’17 AIP Spert_System_AIP1—’17 AIP Spert_System_AIPat is approxim
tion Plan: Te
d in 2010, an
eed for apro
ently unavai
rt master pla
75 feet wide
ource. There
d with skis, a
is no State m
al aircraft op
een propose
0 feet wide)
or weather
n Lodge, on L
completely
urther needs
t long and 60
oes not acco
r runway. Th
al inspection
ns annually.
erminal Area F
ending Plan. DeP_Spending_Plending Plan. DeP_Spending_Plately 75 feet w
chnical Appe
nd airspace
on expansion
ilable. As of
an.
e). The airpo
e are no
lthough a sn
maintenance
perations. Th
ed for fundin
and serves
data source
Lake Louise,
reconstruct
s have been
0 feet wide33
mmodate
he runway
n prior to us
Forecast. Availa
ecember 9, 20an.pdf ecember 9, 20an.pdf wide.
endix
85
n and
rt
now
e
he
ng in
e
is
ed
3).
sing.
able
15.
15.
Matanus
86
SkwentnThe Skwe
gravel ru
75 feet w
approxim
annually
operated
no weath
facilities
There is n
planes eq
although
when po
on skis w
threshold
reflective
brush, sm
the runw
spending
SummitThe Sum
and 80 fe
source is
runway e
airfield. A
available
34 DOT&PFAvailable a
ska‐Susitna B
na Airport entna Airpor
nway (3,400
wide). It is th
mately 3,500
. The airport
d via pilot co
her data sou
to accommo
no designate
quipped wit
h a snow pac
ssible to acc
west of the R
d. The runwa
e cones. The
mall trees) w
way; howeve
g plan34.
t Airport mit Airport,
eet wide) tha
via transcri
ends. Small b
Approximate
e, and the air
F. 2015. Alaska at http://dot.al
Borough 203
rt consists of
0 feet long a
e site of
0 aircraft ope
t lighting is
ontrol, but th
urce. There a
odate seapla
ed runway fo
h skis in the
ck is maintain
commodate
unway 27
ay is marked
e runway sur
were remove
r, no further
near the MS
at is not mo
bed weathe
brush and w
ely 800 aircr
rport is not m
DOT&PF Ruralaska.gov/stwd
35 Long Rang
f one
nd
erations
here is
are no
anes.
or
winter,
ned
planes
d with
rface was reh
ed in 2013. T
r needs have
SB’s norther
nitored, and
r broadcast.
weeds up to 3
aft operatio
maintained d
l Airport Systedav/document
ge Transport
habilitated i
The Skwentn
e been prop
rn boundary
d there is no
. There is no
30 inches hig
ons occur ann
during the w
m Draft FFY ’1s/Rural_Airpor
Skwentna Air
tation Plan:
n 2010, and
a River is er
osed for fun
y, has a grave
airport light
o line‐of‐sigh
gh are comm
nually. There
winter.
1—’17 AIP Spert_System_AIP
rport
Technical A
airspace ob
oding the so
nding in the
el runway (3
ting. The we
ht visibility be
mon on secti
e are no sea
ending Plan. DeP_Spending_Pl
ppendix
bstructions (
outheast end
DOT&PF 6‐y
3,814 feet lo
eather data
etween the
ions of the
aplane facilit
ecember 9, 20an.pdf
e.g.,
d of
year
ng
ties
15.
TalkeetThe Talke
runway (
wide). Th
via pilot c
data sou
broadcas
runway f
in the wi
maintain
planes on
to accom
gravel he
feet wide
During th
operatio
airport o
rehabilita
improvem
taxiways
convertin
tree clea
Willow AThe Willo
(4,400 fe
airport lig
available
on an ho
the site o
annually,
round. W
airplanes
on skis. T
and 2007
was initia
Willow A
improvem
Matanuska‐
na Airport eetna Airpor
3,500 feet lo
he airport lig
control, and
rce is via tra
st. There is n
for planes eq
nter, althou
ned when po
n skis. There
mmodate floa
elipad (480 f
e) is availabl
he summer,
ns annually.
ver the past
ation, and o
ment and pa
/runways, a
ng Taxiway C
rance, a new
Airport ow Airport h
eet long and
ghting is via
e, weather da
urly basis on
of approxima
, is maintain
Willow Lake i
s in summer
The runway w
7, and an air
ated in 2009
Airport includ
ments, const
‐Susitna Bor
rt has an asp
ong and 75 f
ghting is ope
d the weathe
nscribed we
no designate
quipped with
gh a snow p
ossible to allo
e are no facil
at planes. A
eet long and
e at the airp
it is one of t
A considera
t 20 years, in
bstruction re
avement reh
dditional sig
C to an exit t
w pedestrian
has a gravel r
75 feet wide
pilot contro
ata reports a
nly. The airp
ately 15,700
ed by DOT&
s used regul
, on floats, a
was rehabili
port master
9. Identified
de taxiway
truction of a
rough 2035 L
phalt
feet
erated
er
eather
ed
h skis
pack is
ow for
lities
d 85
port. The hel
the busiest n
able number
ncluding apro
emoval (e.g.
habilitation.
gnage, updat
taxiway, con
n pathway, a
runway
e). The
ol. When
are provided
ort, which is
0 operations
&PF year‐
arly by
and winter,
tated in 200
r plan (AMP)
needs at the
access roads
Ta
Long Range T
ipad is curre
non‐primary
r of improve
on expansio
., brush, tree
Specific imp
ting runway
nstruction of
and new fen
d
s
05
e
s, signage, fe
alkeetna Airp
Willow
Transportat
ently located
y airports. Th
ements have
on, taxiway c
es). DOT&PF
provements
designation
f a new trans
cing.
encing, reloc
ort
Airport
tion Plan: Te
d on the acti
he airport av
been imple
construction
F is currently
include resu
n from 18/36
sient apron a
cation of the
chnical Appe
ive runway.
verages 30,0
emented at t
, runway
y working on
urfacing exist
6 to 1/19,
and taxi‐lan
e Senior Cent
endix
87
00
the
n
ting
e,
ter
Matanus
88
Access Ro
improvem
has been
Munici
Palmer The Palm
within th
3,000 foo
City of Pa
The airpo
foot‐wide
tundra ti
foot‐wide
than 12,5
foot‐long
The airpo
areas, on
aviation,
commerc
passenge
airport is
approxim
aircraft o
FAA main
Flight Ser
two emp
111 base
Palmer A
available
include: a
35 DOT&PFAvailable a
ska‐Susitna B
oad, installa
ments, and a
n identified i
pal Airpo
Airport mer Airport, m
he MSB. The
ot runways.
almer in 196
ort has three
e paved run
res. This run
e paved run
500 pounds.
g runway ha
ort has two a
ne for genera
and anothe
cial cargo an
er operation
s the site of
mately 30,00
operations a
ntains a man
rvice Station
ployees. Ther
ed aircraft at
Airport. Servi
e at the airpo
a flight scho
F. 2015. Alaska at http://dot.al
Borough 203
tion of Auto
an extension
n the DOT&
rts
managed by
Palmer Airp
Ownership o
63.
e runways fo
way (16/34)
nway (16/34
way (9/27) p
The 3,615‐f
s only exit a
apron
al
er for
nd/or
s. The
00
nnually.
nned
n with
re are
t the
ices
ort
ol, 24‐hour f
DOT&PF Ruralaska.gov/stwd
35 Long Rang
omated Wea
n of Runway
PF 6‐year sp
y the City of
port was con
of the airpor
or aircraft us
). A gravel ru
S) is 1,560 fe
provides cro
foot‐long ru
nd apron tax
fuel service,
l Airport Systedav/document
Palmer Airp
ge Transport
ather Observ
y 3/21. A $3.8
pending plan
Palmer, is o
nstructed in
rt was transf
se. The prim
unway, paral
eet long and
osswind cove
nway has a p
xiways.
, engine rebu
m Draft FFY ’1s/Rural_Airpor
port
tation Plan:
vation System
8 million air
n35, but it rem
ne of two m
1947, and at
ferred from
ary runway
llel to 16/34
d 60 feet wid
erage but is
paved parall
uilding, airfr
1—’17 AIP Spert_System_AIP
Technical A
m, highway
port improv
mains unfun
municipal airp
t that time c
the State of
is a 6,009‐fo
4, is available
de. A 3,615‐f
closed to air
lel taxiway, w
rame repair/
ending Plan. DeP_Spending_Pl
ppendix
crossing
vement proje
nded.
ports located
consisted of
f Alaska to th
oot‐long by 1
e for aircraft
foot‐long by
rcraft greate
while the 6,0
/painting, an
ecember 9, 20an.pdf
ect
d
two,
he
100‐
t with
y 75‐
er
000‐
nd
15.
avionics.
airport h
federal a
Forestry
compatib
Over the
apron ex
proposed
included
sand stor
apron ex
Runway
Wasilla The Was
within th
to 5,800
includes
addition
developm
extension
Short‐ter
improvem
LPV a
Prope
deve
Pilot/
Gene
and p
Airpo
Paral
ILS eq
Matanuska‐
Although th
as been use
gencies peri
uses the air
ble with gen
past 20 yea
xpansion, lan
d many impr
relocating t
rage building
xpansion. As
16/34.
Airport illa Airport,
he MSB. The
feet. The air
144 tie‐dow
to the runw
ment of a pil
n of the para
rm (5 years o
ments includ
approach
erty acquisit
lopment
/passenger f
eral aviation
paving
ort access ro
lel taxiway e
quipment in
‐Susitna Bor
here are no s
d as a stagin
iodically use
port during
eral aviation
ars, the airpo
nd acquisitio
rovements t
he golf cour
g, relocation
of July 2017
managed by
airport’s 3,7
rport has ap
wn spaces an
way extension
ot/passenge
allel taxiway
or less)
ded:
tion for airpo
facility
apron expan
ad improvem
extension
stallation
rough 2035 L
scheduled co
ng area for a
e the airport
the summer
n use.
ort has been
n, and runw
o be accomp
rse fence, co
n of Taxiway
7, the airport
y the City of
700‐foot‐lon
proximately
nd 20 lease lo
n, other imp
er facility, ex
y, utility imp
ort
nsion
ments
Long Range T
ommercial f
air shipments
for logistica
r fire season
the site of t
way lighting r
plished by 2
onstruction o
B, construct
t was in the
Wasilla, is th
ng by 75‐foot
y 1.6 million
ots. An AMP
provements
xpansion and
rovements,
Wasilla Airpo
Transportat
flights using
s to rural Ala
al support an
n. Existing lan
taxiway cons
rehabilitatio
035. Recom
of security fe
tion of a hel
process of r
he other mu
t‐wide pave
square feet
P update was
identified in
d paving of t
and develop
ort
tion Plan: Te
the Palmer A
aska for seve
nd the State
nd use aroun
struction, ru
n. The 2015
mended imp
encing, cons
liport, and c
rehabilitatin
unicipal airpo
d runway is
of apron sp
s completed
n the master
the general
pment of the
chnical Appe
Airport, the
eral years. A
Division of
nd the airpo
unway exten
Palmer AM
provements
struction of a
ommercial
g and repav
ort located
being exten
ace, which
d in 2012. In
r plan includ
aviation apr
e North Airp
endix
89
Also,
ort is
nsion,
P
s
a
ing
nded
ed
ron,
park.
Matanus
90
Mid‐term
Seap
Airpo
North
Long‐term
Taxiw
East A
The total
In the lon
operatio
commun
PrivateIt is estim
About on
half have
the road‐
residenti
private re
As the M
needed f
operatio
evaluatio
few airpo
of public
evaluatio
ControAirspace
as well as
to fly at s
various lo
the prote
ska‐Susitna B
m (6 to 10 ye
lane base
ort water and
h Airpark de
m (11 to 20
way, heliport
Apron expan
l cost of thes
ng term, the
ns for passe
ity and surro
Airstrips mated that th
ne‐third of th
e had an FAA
‐accessible p
al airparks a
esidential ai
MSB continue
for safe aviat
nal restrictio
on to ensure
ort owners c
awareness
ons.
lled and Ris controlled
s between a
set altitudes
ocations thr
ection of are
Borough 203
ears) improv
d sewer utili
velopment
years) impro
t, and lease
nsion
se improvem
e City of Was
nger and/or
ounding reg
here are cur
hese airport
A airspace re
portions of t
are among th
rpark.
es to grow, t
tion activitie
ons. The FAA
e the safe op
complete thi
and trained
Reserved d by the Fed
aircraft and t
, on set rout
oughout the
eas immedia
35 Long Rang
ements inclu
ity improvem
ovements in
lot developm
ments is app
silla is intere
r cargo servic
ion.
rrently more
s are not reg
eview. Many
the MSB. Som
he busiest ai
he availabili
es will decre
A requires pr
perations of a
is evaluation
personnel a
Airspacederal govern
terrain to av
tes, in certai
e MSB is rese
tely surroun
ge Transport
uded:
ments
ncluded:
ment
roximately $
sted in estab
ces that will
e than 200 pr
gistered with
y private airs
me private a
irports in the
ty of large, o
ase and airc
rivate airpor
aircraft in th
n. Enforceme
as well as the
e ment for ma
oid collision
in directions
erved for spe
nding airport
tation Plan:
$85 million i
blishing a co
promote th
rivate airstri
h the FAA, a
strips are loc
airports/airst
e MSB. Wolf
open land ar
craft operato
rts to comple
he vicinity of
ent of this po
e large num
aintaining se
ns. Airspace r
s, or at certa
ecific purpo
ts, and the m
Technical A
n 2012 dolla
ommercial b
he economic
ips througho
and only sligh
cated within
trips develo
f Lake is an e
reas that pro
ors will face
ete an airspa
f other deve
olicy is limit
ber of airpo
eparation be
reservations
ain speeds. A
ses such as
maintenance
ppendix
ars.
ase of
c vitality of th
out the MSB
htly more th
subdivision
ped within
example of a
ovide the sp
more
ace analysis
lopments. V
ed due to a
rts needing
etween aircr
s require airc
Airspace in
military train
e of designat
he
B.
han
s in
a
ace
Very
lack
raft
craft
ning,
ted
flight rou
determin
MSB ReWhile the
land use
aviation
with othe
identify h
to suppo
complete
prelimina
five majo
location
compatib
The 2008
Involv
o E
M
is
M
Airsp
o R
to
o E
o H
is
o S
Comm
o FA
lo
36 Capstonsafety and providing tincorporat
Matanuska‐
utes. Land ow
nation prior
egional Ave MSB is not
planning an
interests an
er activities
how aviation
ort this trans
e, includes e
ary screenin
or tasks: an e
study, public
ble land use
8 RASP provi
vement of th
stablishmen
MSB Assemb
s composed
MSB Planning
ace
equire new
o obtain an F
ncourage pi
Hold ongoing
ssues
upport impl
munications
AA should co
ogical geogra
e refers to a joefficiency in Athe supportingted it into Auto
‐Susitna Bor
wners are re
to the const
viation Syt currently a
d promoting
d the public
in the region
n in the MSB
portation m
extensive res
g of over 30
economic im
c involveme
study.
ided recomm
he Aviation
nt of an Aviat
ly action and
of a diverse
g Commissio
and existing
FAA airspace
lots to fly wi
g discussions
ementation
ontinue to r
aphic patter
oint industry anAlaska putting cg ground infrasomatic Depend
rough 2035 L
equired by Fe
truction of a
ystem Plann airport ow
g economic
to promote
n. The MSB
B may chang
ode. The RA
search to ide
0 sites within
mpact assess
nt of user gr
mendations
Community
tion Advisor
d currently m
mix of aviat
on.
g airports, co
e determina
ith landing li
s between th
of Capstone
eassign radi
n
nd FAA researccost effective, tructure. The Cdent Surveillanc
Long Range T
ederal regul
n airport.
n Recommwner and ope
developmen
e/preserve av
is currently c
e over time
ASP was deve
entify deman
n the MSB, a
ment of Stat
roups, an AM
within five is
ry Board (AA
meets on a m
tion and non
ommercial fl
tion and reg
ights on to in
he MSB, FAA
e‐type techn
o frequencie
ch and developnew technologCapstone projece–Broadcast s
Transportat
ation to obt
mendatioerator, it ha
nt, and is int
viation and
completing
and what ac
eloped in tw
nd for new a
nd recomme
te airports in
MP and layo
ssue catego
AB). The AAB
monthly bas
n‐aviation int
oatplane ba
gistration
ncrease thei
A, and AAB to
nology36 in th
es to airport
pment project gy avionics equect was disconsurveillance sy
tion Plan: Te
tain an airsp
ns s responsibi
terested in w
encourage c
Phase II of it
ctions the M
wo phases. P
airport facilit
endations. P
n the MSB, a
ut plan anal
ries, summa
B was establi
is. The nine
terests and
ases, helipad
ir visibility to
o discuss mi
he MSB
ts in the MSB
designed to imuipment into atinued in 2006ystem.
chnical Appe
ace
lities regard
working with
compatibility
ts RASP to
MSB should t
hase I, whic
ties in the M
Phase II inclu
a floatplane
ysis, and a
arized below
ished in 200
member bo
reports to th
ds, and helip
o other plan
litary airspa
B following a
mprove aviatioaircraft and 6 and the FAA h
endix
91
ding
h
y
ake
h is
MSB,
udes
base
w:
9 by
oard
he
orts
es
ce
a
n
has
Matanus
92
o C
o FA
ro
o Im
n
u
o Ex
Airpo
o N
p
o A
o In
o E
re
o C
o R
a
th
o A
a
Publi
o A
im
The RASP
FAA airsp
Other R
ProposeThere is c
available
airport lo
precision
Wasilla A
This wou
effective
instrume
ska‐Susitna B
ommunicate
AA should e
outes
mplement a
oise abatem
se rules, and
xpand radio
ort Compatib
Notify proper
roximity to a
Address airpo
nvolve AAB i
ncourage co
eviews
onsider airp
equire cond
irports, com
hat address
Amend Title 2
irports; requ
c Airport Im
Airport owne
mprovement
P also recom
pace determ
Recomme
ed Precisiocurrently no
e for resident
ocation for u
n instrument
Airport, the F
uld significan
ly close all a
ent landing c
Borough 203
e private air
stablish stan
comprehen
ment procedu
d more
and radar c
bility
rty owners o
an airport on
orts in comp
n Lake Mana
onsolidation
port proximit
ditional use p
mmercial floa
minimum ai
27 (now liste
uire airports
provements
ers should co
t needs
mmended tha
mination and
endations
on Instrumeo regularly sc
ts. To addre
use during po
t approach fo
FAA would li
ntly restrict t
airports with
conditions (i.
35 Long Rang
port location
ndard VFR re
sive pilot ed
ures, radio f
coverage in t
of airport loc
n plats
prehensive p
agement Pla
of antenna
ty when sitin
permits, plan
atplane base
rport safety
ed as Title 43
to be show
s
onsider RASP
at all existin
registration
s
ent Approacheduled air
ss this and p
oor weather
or Wasilla A
ikely establis
the operatio
in 5 miles w
.e., ceiling le
ge Transport
ns and radio
eporting poi
ducation pro
requencies,
the MSB
cations on M
lans and Spe
ans that add
towers and
ng public fac
nned unit de
s, helipads,
y standards
3) to define
n on a plat if
P public com
g and new a
n.
ach to Waline commu
provide Anch
r, the Wasilla
irport. To im
sh Class E co
n of VFR airc
when aircraft
ess than 1,00
tation Plan:
o frequencie
nts and prov
gram about
use of radio
MSB or DOT&
ecial Land U
ress aviation
involve AAB
cilities near a
evelopment,
and heliport
platting req
f subdivision
mments abou
airports in th
asilla Airpoting services
horage‐boun
a AMP propo
mplement an
ontrolled airs
craft traffic i
t approach W
00 feet or vis
Technical A
s to pilots
vide informa
all of the to
os and landin
&PF maps an
se Districts
n
B in antenna/
airports
, or land use
ts; adopt air
uirements s
n of land is r
ut future airp
he MSB be re
ort s or air freig
nd IFR traffic
osed develo
n instrument
space aroun
in the area a
Wasilla Airpo
sibility less t
ppendix
ation on mili
opics such as
ng lights, lan
nd note close
/tall tower
e permits for
rport templa
specifically fo
equired
port
equired to o
ght services
c an alternat
opment of a
t approach a
nd the airpor
and could
ort during
than 3 miles)
itary
s
nd
e
r new
ate(s)
or
btain
te
at
rt.
). As
mentione
resolved
ImproveRecogniz
continue
funding o
managed
and priva
needs. Th
aviation
SeaplanAlthough
used as s
same lak
conflicts
utilize th
should be
adjacent
appropri
standard
ramps, fl
be restric
CapitalIt is antic
which ha
reduced
essential
and oper
investiga
of airpor
its capita
agency s
Matanuska‐
ed in the Wa
.
ed Airportszing the impo
e to actively s
of a system o
d airports sh
ate pilots. Th
he two mun
companies a
ne Bases h public seap
seaplane bas
kes are popu
arises when
e same area
e encourage
recreationa
ate FAA not
ds for naviga
oats, hanga
cted to publ
Funding cipated that
as historically
in the forese
operationa
rating in a sa
ate the poten
t infrastruct
al and expert
hares in the
‐Susitna Bor
asilla AMP, a
s ortance of a
support the
of public airp
ould continu
he improvem
icipal airpor
as well as air
plane bases a
ses, with the
lar recreatio
n occupants
a at the same
ed when the
al and reside
ification and
ble waterwa
rs, fueling fa
ic seaplane f
the availabi
y supported
eeable futur
l improveme
afe manner.
ntial for Pub
ure in the M
tise to provid
benefits an
rough 2035 L
airspace con
viation with
developme
ports and se
ue to be imp
ments should
rts should be
r taxi operat
are not gene
e private sec
on sites for r
of aircraft, b
e time. The d
need is dem
ntial land us
d airspace re
ays. To the g
acilities, term
facilities for
lity of fundin
a majority o
re. Federally
ents deemed
The MSB sh
blic‐Private P
MSB. A PPP is
de a service
d risks of the
Long Range T
flicts with su
in the MSB,
nt, improvem
eaplane base
proved to pr
d be prioritiz
e improved t
tors and priv
erally recogn
ctor providin
residents as
boats, jet ski
developmen
monstrated,
ses. These fa
eview and in
greatest exte
minals) for co
reasons of s
ng from the
of public airp
y funded airp
d necessary
ould encour
Partnerships
s an agreem
or a facility
e project.
Transportat
urrounding a
it is recomm
ment, maint
es throughou
rovide for th
zed based on
to provide fo
vate pilots.
nized in the
ng the neces
well as visito
s, and other
nt of non‐co
provided th
acilities shou
compliance
ent possible,
ommercial s
safety and la
Federal Airp
port develop
port projects
by the FAA t
rage public a
(PPP) in the
ent whereby
to a public a
tion Plan: Te
airports wou
mended that
tenance, ope
ut the MSB.
e needs of a
n activity lev
or the needs
MSB, many
sary support
ors. The pot
r watercraft
mmercial se
hat it is comp
uld be develo
e with U.S. C
, facilities (e
seaplane ope
and use com
port Improve
pment in the
s will likely b
to keep the
airport spon
e provision a
y the private
agency. In re
chnical Appe
uld need to b
t the Boroug
eration, and
DOT&PF
air taxi opera
vel and safet
s of commer
of the lakes
t facilities. T
ential for
attempt to
eaplane facil
patible with
oped with
oast Guard
.g., docks,
erations sho
mpatibility.
ement Progr
e MSB, will b
be focused o
airports ope
sors to
nd/or opera
e sector utili
eturn, the pu
endix
93
be
gh
ators
ty
rcial
are
These
ities
ould
ram,
be
on
en
ation
izes
ublic
R
Rail TTranCh
nspoapteortat
er 8tion
Matanuska‐
‐Susitna Bor
rough 2035 L
This page int
Long Range T
tentionally lef
Transportat
ft blank.
tion Plan: Te
chnical Appeendix
95
Matanus
96
ChaptThe Alask
MSB. Wa
of railroa
such as c
transport
freight an
years. It w
growth o
Matanus
The Alask
Federal g
establish
(ARRC) in
State‐ow
appointe
freight an
ExistingWithin in
miles of m
(Palmer S
Talkeetn
Figure 30
37 The Palm38 This statservice to t
ska‐Susitna B
er 8 Rail Tka Railroad h
asilla, Palme
ad construct
coal mining a
t) continue t
nd passenge
will play a ke
of Port MacK
ska‐Susitna V
ka Railroad w
government
hment of the
n 1985. It op
wned corpora
ed board of d
nd passenge
g Condition the MSB, A
mainline tra
State Fair Gr
a), with whi
0).
mer spur line istion is used to sthis station.
Borough 203
Transporthas played a
r, Chickaloo
ion and ope
are no longe
to be a thriv
er services ov
ey role in the
Kenzie and d
Valley indust
was purchas
by the State
e Alaska Railr
perates indep
ation under
directors. AR
er rail service
ons ARRC has app
ck37 and thr
round38, Wa
stle stops in
s approximatelsupport specia
35 Long Rang
tation a fundament
n, Sutton, an
ration betw
er major eco
ing basic ind
ver the past
e long‐term
evelopment
try.
sed from the
e of Alaska v
road Corpor
pendently as
the directio
RRC provides
e.
proximately
ee stations
silla, and
remote are
y 11 miles. al events at the
ge Transport
tal role in the
nd other com
een 1915 an
nomic drive
dustry. The r
20
t of
e
via the
ation
s a
n of an
s
185.2
as (see
e State Fair Gro
Figur
tation Plan:
e developm
mmunities g
nd 1920. Alth
rs, others (e
railroad has
ound. There is
re 30. Existin
Technical A
ent and eco
got their star
hough some
e.g., gravel e
expanded it
no regular
ng ARRC Fac
ppendix
nomy of the
rt as a bypro
e early indus
xtraction an
ts range of
cilities
e
oduct
stries
nd
Planne
Port MaThe Port
a MSB pr
cooperat
building
Port Mac
Inlet to t
Houston
the new
the ARRC
approxim
and 5 mi
Cook Inle
(60 feet a
dredging
ships. Th
1,300 tid
accommo
transport
loading a
Septemb
2017, the
approxim
Glenn HThe Palm
Highway
along thi
Highway
Palmer g
DOT&PF,
39 As reporreported b
Matanuska‐
ed Improv
acKenzie RMacKenzie
roject being
tion with the
a new 32‐m
cKenzie on th
he ARRC ma
(see Figure
rail line wou
C system. Po
mately 30 mi
les due nort
et. The port
at low tide) t
g and can ser
e port’s 8,94
e‐land acres
odate bulk r
t, and proce
and unloadin
ber 2014 esti
e project is o
mately $125
Highway Mmer Branch o
s interchang
s area. This
. These stree
gravel site is
, the City of
rted by PMRE Eby KSKA on Aug
‐Susitna Bor
ements
Rail ExtensiRail Extensio
constructed
e ARRC. The
ile track con
he Knik Arm
ainline track
31). When c
uld operate a
ort MacKenzi
les southwe
th of Anchor
has a deep‐d
that require
rve the worl
40 upland ac
s provide am
resource sto
essing faciliti
ng. All of the
imate indica
on hold with
million to co
MP 34–42 Imof the ARRC t
ge to downto
growth has
ets are block
expected to
Palmer, and
Executive Direcgust 6, 2014.
rough 2035 L
on on project is
d in
project is
nnecting
of Cook
near
complete,
as part of
ie lies
est of Wasilla
rage, across
draft dock
es no
d’s largest
cres and
mple room to
rage,
es, as well a
e project fun
ated that the
h approximat
omplete the
mprovemetrack paralle
own Palmer
resulted in a
ked during th
o produce gra
d the MSB to
ctor, Joe Perkin
Long Range T
s
a
o
s rail and te
ding thus fa
e project cos
tely 60 perce
project, but
ents els the Glenn
. Over time,
additional sid
he gravel loa
avel for ano
o identify a s
ns, at an Augus
Figure 3
Transportat
rminal facili
r has come f
st will exceed
ent complet
t funding ha
n Highway fr
residential d
de streets co
ading proces
ther 20 year
olution to th
st 5, 2014 mee
31. Port Mac
tion Plan: Te
ties for effic
from State g
d $300 millio
ted. It will co
s not been i
rom the Park
developmen
onnecting to
ss at gravel p
rs, the ARRC
he blocked c
eting of the MS
cKenzie Rail
chnical Appe
cient train
grants. A
on39. As of Ju
ost
dentified.
ks/Glenn
nt has occur
o the Glenn
pit tipple. As
C is working w
crossings.
SB Assembly an
Extension
endix
97
uly
red
s the
with
nd
Matanus
98
The grav
larger iss
along the
streets c
DOT&PF
Highway
project w
increasin
install tu
improvem
design pr
multi‐age
and traff
addressin
Loop, as
improvin
of the Gl
Possible
Provi
Myst
Build
track
Grad
Exten
elimi
ska‐Susitna B
el train issue
sue for ARRC
e Glenn High
ross the railr
is considerin
MP 34‐42 R
will reconstru
ng traffic, inc
rn pockets, a
ments such a
rocess, the p
ency Diagno
fic experts. T
ng the grave
well as prov
ng all road/ra
enn Highwa
solutions inc
ding a short
ic Circle
ing a frontag
s
e separating
nding McLeo
nate some c
Borough 203
e at Outer Sp
C—improving
hway where
road tracks.
ng the railro
Reconstructio
uct the highw
clude adding
and address
as road/rail
project team
stic Team co
The project w
el train activi
vide recomm
ail crossings
y (see Figure
clude:
ter bypass ro
ge road alon
g one or mor
od Road to th
crossings
35 Long Rang
pringer Loop
g safety at a
the resident
oad as part o
on project. T
way to acco
g lanes, wide
s other traffi
crossings. A
m is working
omprised of
will identify o
ity at Outer
mendations f
between M
e 32).
oute by exte
ng the east s
re crossings
he Glenn Hig
ge Transport
p is part of a
ll locations
tial side
of its Glenn
The DOT&PF
mmodate
en shoulders
c and safety
As part of the
with a
engineering
options for
Springer
for
P 34 and 42
nding
side of the
ghway to
tation Plan:
F
s,
y
e
g
Gravel
When a
arrives
86 hopp
approxi
of the t
two sec
Inner Sp
40 or so
loaded
moves s
Outer S
hour.
The pro
second
Springe
traffic e
crossing
drivers
hour) fo
turn aro
approxi
Springe
highwa
Technical A
Loading Pro
an empty gra
in Palmer, it
per cars (me
imately 1 m
tipple. The tr
ctions to avo
pringer Loop
o hopper rai
with gravel,
slowly south
Springer Loo
ocess repeat
half of the t
er neighborh
encounters t
g at Outer S
must either
or the crossi
ound and dr
imately 3 m
er Loop to ac
y.
ppendix
ocess:
avel train
t pulls all 80
easuring
ile long) nor
rain breaks i
oid blocking
p. As the firs
lcars are
, the train
h, blocking
p for about
ts for the
train. When
hood vehicle
the blocked
pringer Loop
r wait (up to
ing to clear,
rive
iles to Inner
ccess the
to
rth
nto
st
an
p,
an
or
Figure 32
Map Source:
Matanuska‐
2. Potential
ARRC
‐Susitna Bor
Improveme
rough 2035 L
ents to Redu
Long Range T
ce Blocked C
Transportat
Crossings in
tion Plan: Te
n Palmer
chnical Appeendix
99
Matanus
100
South WThe ARRC
cooperat
the Fede
Administ
(FTA), pla
straighte
along the
track bet
ARRC MP
(south of
Gershme
where th
begins a
curve to
north) an
158 (just
the inter
the Old
Matanus
and Glen
Avenue;
Figure 33
along the
passenge
freight tr
developm
relocatio
RailroaA railroad
adequacy
Palmer b
safety an
and affec
Decisions
railroad u
ska‐Susitna B
Wasilla RailC, in
tion with
ral Transit
tration
ans to
en curves
e mainline
tween
P 154
f
el Loop,
he track
sharp
the
nd MP
south of
section of
ska Road
nwood
see
3). This is pa
e main line t
er applicatio
rain efficienc
ment of a W
on effort. Thi
ad-Highwad‐related iss
y and safety
branch. The d
nd economic
cts many use
s should be
user costs, r
Borough 203
Line Reloc
rt of a larger
track betwee
ns, as it will
cy and safety
asilla‐Ancho
is project is e
ay Grade sue that dire
y of the railro
decision to g
cs. Separatin
ers and near
based on lon
ather than p
Figure 33.
Source: ARRC
35 Long Rang
cation
r ARRC effor
en Girdwood
reduce trav
y. Reducing
orage comm
estimated at
Crossingsectly affects t
oad‐highway
grade‐separa
ng a grade cr
rby property
ng‐term, full
purely on ini
South Wasi
ge Transport
rt to reduce
d and Wasilla
vel times on
travel time o
uter rail. AR
t $40 million
s the moveme
y grade cross
ate a rail‐hig
rossing norm
y owners.
ly allocated
tial construc
illa Rail Line
tation Plan:
track curvat
a. This proje
this section
on this segm
RC has the r
n.
ent of peopl
sings located
ghway crossi
mally require
life cycle cos
ction costs. A
Relocation
Technical A
ture and imp
ect has both
of track as w
ment would s
right of way
le within the
d on the ma
ing is primar
es a significa
sts, includin
And as traffi
ppendix
prove safety
freight and
well as impro
support
it needs for
e MSB is the
in line and t
rily a matter
nt investme
g highway a
ic is increasi
y
ove
this
the
r of
nt
nd
ng
on nearly
separate
Savin
costs
The b
Elimi
Drive
Costs
backe
Fuel a
Effec
The p
Train
DOT&PF
MSB. DO
Creek (Pa
MP 214.3
An additi
STIP. How
FederalThe Fede
help stat
others. T
operating
consider
traffic. Th
can be us
The WBA
40 FHWA. 2http://safe
Matanuska‐
y all roads in
an at‐grade
ngs in highwa
;
benefits of im
nating train/
er delay cost
s associated
ed up by a tr
and pollutio
ts of any "sp
potential for
derailment
and ARRC h
OT&PF is curr
arks Highwa
30).
ional grade c
wever, no fu
l Railroad Aeral Railroad
es, railroads
The accident
g characteri
certain fact
he WBAPS d
sed with oth
APS for the M
2002. Guidanceety.fhwa.dot.go
‐Susitna Bor
n the MSB, p
e crossing sh
ay‐rail grade
mproved em
/vehicle coll
savings;
with provid
rain);
n mitigation
pillover" con
r closing one
costs.
ave been wo
rently constr
y MP 91.6/A
crossing pro
unds have be
Administra Administrat
s, and others
prediction f
stics and five
ors such as s
data should n
her informat
MSB is show
e on Traffic Conov/media/twg
rough 2035 L
rojected tra
ould conside
e crossing su
mergency acc
isions (by us
ing increase
n cost saving
gestion on t
or more ad
orking on el
ructing two
ARRC MP 206
ject (MP 194
een allocated
ation Web tion has a w
s in determi
formula is ba
e years of ac
sight‐distanc
not be used
tion to help i
n in Table 17
ntrol Devices areport.htm#72
Long Range T
ffic levels sh
er the follow
urfaces, cross
cess;
sing accident
d highway s
gs (from idlin
the rest of th
ditional adja
iminating so
grade separ
6.25) and Su
4 Broad Pass
d for this pro
Accident web‐based ac
ning which c
ased on info
ccident histo
ce, highway
to rank cros
identify cros
7.
at Highway‐Rai2
Transportat
hould be use
wing40:
sing signal in
t prediction
storage capa
ng queued ve
he roadway
acent crossin
ome of the a
rations of the
unshine (Par
s RR Overcro
oject.
Predictionccident pred
crossings ma
ormation abo
ory data at t
congestion,
ssings as mo
ssings that m
il Grade Crossi
tion Plan: Te
ed. Analysis o
nstallation, a
values);
acity (to acco
ehicles);
system;
ngs; and
t‐grade cros
e Parks High
rks Highway
ossing) is inc
n System diction system
ay be more h
out a crossin
he crossing.
, and hazard
st to least d
may need fur
ngs. Novembe
chnical Appe
of whether t
and mainten
ommodate t
ssings in the
hway at Mon
MP 100.7/A
cluded in the
m (WBAPS)
hazardous th
ng’s physical
It does not
dous materia
angerous, b
rther evalua
er 2002. Availab
endix
101
to
nance
raffic
ntana
ARRC
e
to
han
and
al
ut it
tion.
ble at
M
1
T
Matanuska‐Susi
102
Table 17. WBAP
# APV
1 0.075797
2 0.051065
3 0.039846
4 0.026881
5 0.024132
6 0.021571
7 0.020891
8 0.020409
9 0.018773
10 0.017600
11 0.016508
12 0.016441
13 0.016088
14 0.015696
15 0.015538
16 0.015256
17 0.014998
18 0.014851
19 0.014851
20 0.013579
21 0.012772
22 0.012527
23 0.012527
24 0.012464
25 0.009772
itna Borough 20
PS Accident Pre
Crossing C
868318Y Wa
910224K Wa
868331M Wi
868311B Wa
868319F Wa
868322N Wa
868520J Pa
868315D Wa
868335P Wi
910335C Wa
868328E Hou
868338K Talk
868341T Talk
868323V Wa
868325J Hou
868512S Pa
868510D Pa
868320A Wa
868334H Wi
868316K Wa
910360K Wa
868332U Wi
868342A Talk
910225S Wa
868345V Can
035 Long Range
dication Values
City Road
asilla Knik GoosBay
asilla Abby Blv
illow Willow Station
asilla Glenn Hw
asilla Snider
asilla Pittman R
lmer EvergreeAve
asilla Fairview Lo
illow Parks Hw
asilla S Mack Dri
uston Nancy LkLand
keetna Parks Hw
keetna TalkeetnaSpur
asilla MeadowLakes Rd
uston Cheri Lake
lmer Outer Springer
lmer Grandview
asilla Lucille Lan
illow Hidden Hi
asilla Glenwoo
asilla East Firewe
illow FishhookWillow
keetna Talkeetna
asilla Jude Rd
ntwell Parks Hw
Transportation
s
Number
13 12
se 0 0
d 0 1
0 0
wy 0 0
0 0
Rd 0 0
n 0 0
oop 0 0
wy 0 0
ive 0 0
k 0 0
wy 0 0
a 0 0
w d
0 0
Rd 0 0
r 0 0
w 0 0
ne 0 0
lls 0 0
d 0 0
eed 0 0
k 0 0
a 0 0
0 0
wy 0 0
n Plan: Technica
of Collisions
11 10 09
1 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
l Appendix
Warning Device
Trainsper Day
GT 18
GT 18
GT 18
GT 14
SS 18
GT 20
OS 0
GT 18
GT 18
GT 18
SS 18
GT 18
GT 18
GT 18
GT 18
XB 8
XB 12
GT 18
GT 18
GT 18
GT 18
GT 18
GT 18
GT 18
GT 12
s Number of Tracks
MAl
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
Maximum llowable Train Speed
# of HighwaTrafficLanes
25 4
35 2
65 2
55 2
49 2
49 2
10 2
35 2
49 2
49 2
65 2
49 2
49 2
49 2
49 2
10 2
10 2
49 2
49 2
30 2
55 2
65 2
40 2
25 2
60 2
ay c
AADT
10,336
2,000
350
20,000
200
4,280
9,500
3,740
2,620
2,000
200
1,510
1,806
1,250
1,200
400
200
1,000
1,000
700
550
510
510
500
1,860
T
AA
# APV
26 0.009355
27 0.007766
28 0.006927
29 0.005488
30 0.000304
31 0.000304
32 0.000304
33 0.000304
34 0.000304
35 0.000304
36 0.000304
37 0.000304
TTL: 0.562801
AADT=Annual AveragActivated; NO=No Sig
Crossing C
868343G Can
868327X Hou
910343U Wi
868508C Pa
868513Y Pa
910245D Pa
910242H Pa
868522X Pa
868519P Pa
868517B Pa
868516U Pa
910308F Pa
ge Daily Traffic; APV=gns or Signals; OS=Ot
City Road
ntwell Parks Hw
uston Lynx Lake
illow KashwitnTrail
lmer MatanuskSpur R
lmer Inner Springer
lmer Cope IndWay
lmer Thuma S
lmer BlueberryAve
lmer Fireweed AE
lmer CommercDr
lmer SpringerInner
lmer South Chugach
= Accident Predictionther Signs or Signals;
Matanuska‐Sus
Number
13 12
wy 0 0
e 0 0
a 0 0
ka 0 0
r 0 0
d. 0 0
t 0 0
y 0 0
Ave 0 0
ial 0 0
r 0 0
h 0 0
0 1
n Value; FQ=Four Qua SP=Special Protectio
sitna Borough 20
of Collisions
11 10 09
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
1 0 2
ad Gates; FL=Flashingon (e.g., a flagman); S
035 Long Range
Warning Device
Trainsper Day
GT 14
SS 18
SS 18
SS 12
XB 0
XB 0
XB 0
OS 0
OS 0
OS 0
XB 0
XB 0
g lights; GT=All OtherSS=Stop Signs; XB=Cr
e Transportation
s Number of Tracks
MAl
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
r Gates; HS=Wigwagrossbucks
n Plan: Technica
Maximum llowable Train Speed
# of HighwaTrafficLanes
35 2
65 2
49 1
10 1
10 2
10 2
10 2
10 2
10 2
10 2
10 2
10 2
s, Highway Signals, B
al Appendix
103
ay c
AADT
1,315
20
20
50
1,250
2,000
1,500
300
2,860
500
3,490
3,110
Bells, or Other
Matanus
104
CommThe conc
MOA, the
Network
Matanus
The rider
Commute
studies c
could be
Susitna V
realigned
agreeme
of these
straighte
running t
The draft
commute
Ship Cree
during th
station n
minutes.
would ha
estimate
To handl
that cost
needed,
equipme
capacity
41 Wilbur SResearch G42 As of Au43 This run services, acompleted
ska‐Susitna B
uter Rail cept of comm
e MSB, and t
Commuter S
ska‐Susitna V
rship elemen
er Rail Conce
oncluded th
initiated: th
Valley and An
d to achieve
ent would be
requiremen
ening of trac
times from W
t 2016 Alask
er rail. The c
ek; see Figur
he evening p
ear the Was43 The rollin
ave level boa
d that total
e this projec
ts approxima
bringing the
ent would be
in the summ
Smith AssociateGroup. 2002. Sgust 2016, thistime assumes nd it assumes d.
Borough 203
muter rail se
the ARRC (1
Study and O
Valley and A
nt of that stu
ept of Opera
hat three req
here would n
nchorage, th
competitive
e needed to
ts have been
k between M
Wasilla to An
ka State Rail
conceptual p
re 34), with t
peak period,
silla Airport t
g stock for t
arding to spe
weekday rid
cted ridershi
ately $9.5 m
e cost for rol
e possible, it
mer with its c
es, Harding ESEouth Central Rs station is undan average spthat the track
35 Long Rang
ervice betwe
979, 1988).
Operation Pla
nchorage, ex
udy was upd
ations, a tech
quirements w
need to be 1
he track betw
e train speed
achieve labo
n completely
Matanuska a
nchorage.
Plan update
plan was bas
three southb
and one mid
to Ship Cree
his service is
eed up the b
dership could
ip, the comm
illion in 2014
ling stock to
would limit
current pass
E, Debbie BlooRail Network Coder developmepeed of 53 milestraightening b
ge Transport
een Anchorag
In 2002, the
an41, which,
xplored serv
dated in 2009
hnical memo
would need
0,000 or mo
ween Wasill
ds, and a com
or costs app
y or nearly m
and Wasilla,
ed the 2009
sed on three
bound peak
d‐day round
ek would hav
s assumed to
boarding/un
d reach 1,50
muter rail se
4 dollars. Th
o approximat
commuter
senger fleet.
m Consulting, ommuter Studyent. es per hour. Thbetween Mata
tation Plan:
ge and the M
e ARRC spon
in addition t
vice between
9 with the W
orandum pr
to be met b
ore commute
a and Ancho
mmuter serv
ropriate for
met. The key
which would
conceptual
stations (W
period trips
d trip. The tri
ve a run time
o be self‐pro
loading proc
00 by 2020.
ervice would
hree train‐se
tely $38 mil
rail service a
Using ARRC
Nancy Whelany and Operatio
his speed is comanuska and Dow
Technical A
MSB has bee
sored the So
to service be
n Girdwood
Wasilla‐Anch
epared for A
efore comm
ers between
orage would
vice‐specific
short‐run tr
y remaining
d support co
operating p
Wasilla42, Mat
s in the morn
ip from a ne
e of approxi
opelled rail c
cess. With th
require a th
ets plus one s
lion. While u
as the ARRC
C equipment
n Consulting, aon Plan
mparable to otwntown Wasil
ppendix
en studied b
outh Central
etween the
and Anchor
horage
ARRC. The ea
muter service
n the Matan
d need to be
labor
rain service.
element is t
ompetitive
lan for
tanuska, and
ning, the rev
ew Wasilla
mately 54
cars. The car
his scenario,
hree‐car trai
spare would
using ARRC
is already at
t for a
and Craciun
ther commuterla has been
y the
l Rail
rage.
arly
e
uska‐
All
the
d
verse
rs
, it is
n‐set
d be
t
r rail
demonst
equipme
The stati
accommo
500 vehic
transit an
up area.
enclosed
ticket ve
anticipat
million.
It is estim
cost appr
year to o
revenue
producin
approxim
Given the
operating
for the co
would be
the fare b
other com
rail is est
equipme
While no
benefit t
grade cro
The next
Coord
Cons
Demo
Form
Const
tration proje
ent may be p
ons are assu
odate appro
cles as well a
nd a passeng
Stations wo
d waiting roo
nding machi
ted to cost b
mated that th
roximately $
operate. Ann
is estimated
ng an operat
mately $3.6 m
e projected
g costs, the
ommuter ra
e 43 percent
box recovery
mmuter rail
timated at $4
ent, $2 millio
ot required t
he service a
ossings.
steps to im
dination wit
ultation with
onstration o
mation and fu
truction of f
ect during th
possible.
umed to
oximately 10
as accommo
ger drop‐off/
uld have an
om and elect
ines. Each st
etween $1 a
he service co
$6.3 million p
nual fare box
d at $2.7 mil
ing subsidy o
million per y
revenue and
fare box rec
il service in
t. This is simi
y ratio achie
systems. Th
45.7 million
on for a layov
o operate co
s it would re
plement com
h the MOA a
h ARRC to ve
of service
unding of the
facilities and
e winter mo
00 to
odate
/pick‐
tronic
tation is
and $5
ould
per
x
lion,
of
year.
d
covery
2020
ilar to
eved by
he capital co
($5.3 million
ver facility, a
ommuter rai
educe the ru
mmuter rail
and MSB
erify run tim
e operating
equipment
F
onths when t
st to implem
n in station i
and $0.4 mil
il, the South
un trip by up
include:
me and neede
authority
purchase
igure 34. Po
there is less
ment the “sta
improvemen
llion for test
h Wasilla Rai
to 6 minute
ed improvem
otential Com
demand for
art‐up” phas
nts, $38 mill
ting).
l Line Realig
es and elimin
ments
mmuter Rail
r ARRC
se of commu
lion for
nment woul
nate multipl
System
105
uter
ld
e at‐
Matanus
106
Recom
CommuDuring de
would lik
commute
would lik
MSB, MO
South‐ce
managin
between
funding s
The MSB
within th
RelocatThe Was
congestio
existing p
Supply B
This facil
only stop
CompleThe Port
is availab
trip betw
resource
miles of s
port that
congestio
ska‐Susitna B
mmendatio
uter Rail evelopment
ke to see com
er rail, so it i
kely come fro
OA, DOT&PF
entral Alaska
g authority a
the Ship Cr
sources, and
B LRTP also re
he MSB to im
te Wasilla Tilla Main Str
on through W
passenger bo
uilding. The
ity will be de
ps when ther
etion of theMacKenzie
ble, the MSB
ween tidewat
s. The proje
staging grou
t can accomm
on on the m
Borough 203
ons
t of the Alask
mmuter rail
is not a fisca
om a variety
and ARRC s
. Specific iss
and operato
eek depot a
d pursuing th
ecommends
mprove effici
Train Statioreet project
Wasilla. The
oarding facil
City of Was
eveloped as
re is a confir
e Port MacRail Extensio
B should purs
ter and Inte
ct will also s
und, a 100‐ra
modate larg
ainline betw
35 Long Rang
ka State Rail
implemente
ally‐constrain
y of sources,
should contin
sues to be ad
or for this ser
nd the comm
he developm
s the ARRC c
ency, promo
on is being dev
proposed d
lity in Wasill
illa has purc
a “condition
rmed passen
cKenzie Raon project is
sue the com
rior Alaska, w
support activ
ail‐car‐loop f
e ocean‐goi
ween the MS
ge Transport
l Plan, stake
ed. Currently
ned element
including th
nue to work
ddressed inc
rvice, addre
muter’s fina
ment of a pilo
ontinue to i
ote safety, a
eloped to pu
design for tha
a. A new fac
hased prope
nal stop” rat
nger to get o
ail Extensios approximat
pletion of th
which may r
vity at Port M
for the effici
ng vessels. T
SB and Anch
tation Plan:
holders in th
y, there is no
t of the LRTP
he MSB, MO
k together to
clude identif
ssing the tra
l destination
ot project.
mplement t
and facilitate
ut in a coupl
at project re
cility is being
erty for a ne
ther than a “
on or off at t
on tely 65 perc
his project. T
reduce the c
MacKenzie, w
ient handing
This rail conn
orage.
Technical A
he MSB indi
o funding to
P. If impleme
OA, DOT&PF,
o pursue com
fying the app
ansportation
n, identifying
heir planned
e economic d
let to reduce
equires the r
g planned ne
ew facility.
“station” bec
hat location
ent complet
The project w
cost of expor
which includ
g of bulk mat
nection may
ppendix
cated that th
implement
ented, fundi
, and FTA. Th
mmuter rail i
propriate
n connection
g potential
d improvem
developmen
e north‐sout
relocation of
ear the old K
cause the tr
n.
te. When fun
will shorten
rting natura
des 14 squar
terials, and a
y also reduce
hey
ing
he
in
n
ents
nt.
th
f the
Kenai
ain
nding
the
l
re
a
e rail
TThis page inttentionally leeft blank.
107
Matanus
108
ska‐Susitna B
M
Borough 203
Mar
35 Long Rang
ine a
ge Transport
and Tra
tation Plan:
CWatansp
Technical A
Chapterbporta
ppendix
pter 9borneation
9e n
TThis page inttentionally leeft blank.
109
Matanus
110
ChaptMarine a
system. T
and relat
MacKenz
for the im
Marine a
non‐road
and recre
more rem
otherwis
business
Existing
Port MaOperatin
port distr
efficientl
ska‐Susitna B
er 9 Maand waterbo
The MSB has
ted industria
zie is planne
mport of sup
and waterbo
d accessible
eational pro
mote areas o
e accessible
es, and recre
g Conditio
acKenzie ng since 2001
rict dedicate
y export nat
Borough 203
arine and rne transpo
s consistentl
al and infrast
d to function
pplies and eq
rne transpo
areas of the
perties as w
of the MSB. A
e. A good exa
eational pro
ons
1, Port MacK
ed to comme
tural resourc
35 Long Rang
Waterbortation rema
ly given a hig
tructure dev
n as the prim
quipment.
rtation prov
e MSB. The r
well as comm
Area lakes a
ample of this
operties that
Kenzie (Figur
ercial and in
ces, but the
ge Transport
orne Tranains an impo
gh priority to
velopment in
mary regiona
vides an imp
iver system
mercial and p
lso provide
s is Big Lake
are accessib
re 35) has 9,
dustrial dev
port can acc
tation Plan:
nsportatioortant part o
o the develo
n the Point M
al facility for
ortant type
provides acc
public recrea
access to so
. In the Big L
ble only by w
,033 acres (1
velopment. T
commodate
Technical A
on of the MSB’s
opment of a
MacKenzie a
r the export
of access fo
cess to priva
ational prope
ome propert
Lake area, th
water.
14 square m
The docks ar
many other
ppendix
s transportat
deep water
area. Port
of resources
r some of th
ate residenti
erties in the
ies not
here are hom
iles) within t
re designed t
r types of ca
tion
r port
s and
he
ial
mes,
the
to
rgo.
Figure 35
Infrastru
Barge
500‐f
squar
Deep
class
bulk c
Term
corne
kitche
intern
Matanuska‐
5. Port MacK
cture at Por
e Dock ‐ a 14
foot sheet p
re foot.
p‐Draft Dock
vessels. The
commoditie
minal Buildin
er of the bar
enette. Utili
net service.
‐Susitna Bor
Kenzie
t MacKenzie
4.7‐acre grav
ile face for d
k ‐ The 1,200
e dock is equ
s at 2,000 to
g ‐ The 7,00
rge dock. It h
ties include
rough 2035 L
e includes:
vel surface a
docking. The
0‐foot‐deep‐
uipped with
ons per hour
0 square foo
has offices av
fuel oil heat
Long Range T
at ‐20‐feet m
e load capaci
draft dock c
a 5‐foot‐wid
r.
ot terminal b
vailable for
t, electricity,
Transportat
mean lower l
ity of the gra
can accomm
de conveyor
building is lo
lease, bathr
, water, sew
tion Plan: Te
low water (M
avel pad is 1
odate Panam
system capa
ocated on th
rooms with s
wer, telephon
chnical Appe
MLLW) with
1,000 pounds
ma and Cape
able of load
e southeast
showers, and
ne, and DSL
endix
111
a
s per
e
ing
d a
Matanus
112
Rivers aCurrently
waterbor
facilities
an issue,
facilities.
be maint
well as a
the deve
available
and oper
RecomThe reco
Port DevContinue
State gra
upgrades
Some of
New
Comp
Natu
Secon
OngoinIt is reco
boat laun
maintena
should be
facilities
fencing w
should no
ska‐Susitna B
and Lakes y, public and
rne transpor
continue to
but there a
The first iss
tained to ens
long the wat
lopment of
e for the ope
rating funds
mmendatiommended im
velopmened developm
ants can be o
s and improv
the major n
highway con
pleted rail co
ral gas supp
nd trestle co
g Operatiommended th
nch facilities
ance, and im
e a priority.
such as fire
when necess
ot be built w
Borough 203
d private boa
rtation for b
be available
re some con
sue is the co
sure the pub
terways bein
boat launch
eration and m
be identifie
ons mprovemen
t ment of Port
obtained to f
vements sho
eeds of the
nnections to
onnection to
ly
onnecting th
on and Mahat the need
s and public
mprovement
Improveme
pits, toilets,
sary to deline
without a pro
35 Long Rang
at launches p
oats and flo
e to users. Fu
ncerns assoc
ndition of th
blic's safety.
ng used for t
facilities, bu
maintenance
d and provid
ts to the ma
MacKenzie i
further the i
ould be mad
port include
o the Parks H
o the ARRC
e barge doc
aintenanced for continu
access point
of existing p
nts should in
and litter co
eate the bou
ovision for c
ge Transport
provide the
atplanes in t
uture availa
iated with th
he facilities a
Another con
transportati
ut those sam
e of the facil
ded for publ
arine transpo
is recommen
mprovemen
e pursuant t
e:
Highway
k to the dee
e ued operatio
ts to lakes an
public acces
nclude appro
ontainers if
undaries of p
ontinued ma
tation Plan:
necessary fa
the summer
bility of exis
he operation
as it relates t
ncern is litte
on. Funding
me funding s
ities. It is im
ic boat laun
ortation syst
nded. To the
nt of the por
to the Port M
ep draft dock
on and main
nd rivers be
s points and
opriate sign
camping or
public prope
aintenance o
Technical A
acilities for r
r. It is import
sting facilitie
n and maint
to safety. Fa
er cleanup at
g sources are
ources are g
mportant tha
ch facilities.
tem are des
e extent that
rt area infras
MacKenzie M
k
tenance of e
recognized.
d boat launch
age indicatin
picnicking is
erty. Also, ne
of the facilit
ppendix
river and lak
tant that the
s should not
tenance of th
acilities need
t the facilitie
e available fo
generally no
t maintenan
cribed below
t Federal or
structure,
Master Plan.
existing pub
. The clean‐u
h facilities
ng allowed u
s allowed; an
ew facilities
ties.
ke
ese
t be
hese
d to
es as
or
t
nce
w.
lic
up,
uses;
nd
Matanuska‐
‐Susitna Bor
T
rough 2035 L
This page int
Long Range T
tentionally le
Transportat
eft blank.
tion Plan: Te
chnical Appeendix
113
114
E
nvirronmC
mentChaptal A
pterAnaly
r 10ysis
Maatanuska‐Su
This page int
sitna Boroug
tentionally lef
gh 2035 Lon
ft blank.
ng Range Tra
ansportationn Plan
115
Matanus
116
ChaptIt is impo
environm
relate to
As the M
require M
plans. Th
be consid
may info
identified
construct
ska‐Susitna B
er 10 Envortant for th
ment. Figure
environmen
MSB moves to
MPOs to con
he LRTP exam
dered during
rm the Natio
d in this LRT
tion.
Borough 203
vironmene LRTP to co
36. shows t
ntally sensiti
owards bein
nsider enviro
mines system
g the project
onal Environ
P will requir
35 Long Rang
ntal Analyonsider how
he location
ive areas in t
g designated
onmental mi
m level issue
t developme
nmental Poli
re more deta
ge Transport
ysis well the alte
of recomme
the study ar
d an MPO it
tigation acti
s and may a
ent process.
cy Act proce
ailed environ
tation Plan:
ernatives fit
ended roadw
rea.
is noted tha
ivities in dev
alert agencie
This high‐le
ess but does
nmental revi
Technical A
with the na
way projects
at federal re
veloping tran
es to issues t
evel environm
s not replace
iew prior to
ppendix
atural and bu
s and how th
gulations
nsportation
that may nee
mental revie
e it. Projects
design and
uilt
hey
ed to
ew
F
Figure 36. Envir
ronmentally Sennsitive Areas
Matanuska‐Sus
sitna Borough 20035 Long Range
e Transportationn Plan: Technica
al Appendix
117
Matanus
118
EnvironEnvironm
2035 LRT
project d
ArchaeArchaeol
Preserva
Preserva
should co
what coo
WetlandWetland
stage to
of a trans
the U.S. w
determin
1. N
2. M
3. So
N
4. St
FloodplDevelopm
(FEMA), t
encroach
the proje
ThreateFish and
considere
of specia
Service a
species h
species p
ska‐Susitna B
nmental Smental resou
TP are discus
development
eological alogical and h
tion Act and
tion Officer
oordinate w
ordination an
ds and Was and waters
design and c
sportation im
within the p
ne jurisdictio
National Wet
Mat‐Su Borou
oil survey m
Natural Reso
tream mapp
ains ment in floo
the Alaska D
hment in reg
ect will not c
ened and Ewildlife spec
ed for each
l concern, a
and the Alask
have the pot
present.
Borough 203
creening/urces that co
ssed in this s
t before they
and Historichistoric resou
d may requir
(SHPO). At t
ith the SHPO
nd research
aters of thes of the U.S.
construction
mprovemen
roject area a
on. Relevant
tlands Invent
ugh Wetland
apping from
urce Conser
ping from the
dplains is re
Department
gulated flood
cause an incr
Endangerecies listed un
project. The
nd fish stock
ka Departme
ential to occ
35 Long Rang
/Consideould potentia
section. Proj
y can be imp
c Resourceurces are reg
re consultati
the start of a
O regarding
needs to be
e U.S. will need to
n. Wetland d
t project to
and to coord
wetland‐rel
tory mappin
d Mapping p
m Soil Survey
vation Servi
e USGS Nati
gulated by t
of Natural R
dways unless
rease in the
ed Speciesnder the Fed
e State of Ala
ks of concer
ent of Fish a
cur within ea
ge Transport
rations ally be affect
ects include
plemented.
es gulated und
on with DOT
any project d
archaeologic
e undertaken
o be conside
delineations
confirm the
dinate with U
lated GIS dat
ng prepared
prepared by
y of the Mata
ce (NRCS 19
onal Hydrolo
the Federal E
Resources, an
s it is accom
100‐year flo
s deral Endang
aska has its o
n. Consultat
nd Game sh
ach project a
tation Plan:
ted by trans
ed in this LRT
er Section 1
T&PF and th
developmen
cal and histo
n.
ered as proje
are recomm
boundaries
U.S. Army Co
tasets availa
by the U.S.
Mike Gracz
anuska Valle
995).
ogy Dataset
Emergency M
nd the MSB.
mpanied by a
ood level.
gered Specie
own list of e
tion with the
hould be und
area and for
Technical A
sportation p
TP will requi
106 of the Na
he Alaska Sta
nt process, th
oric resource
ects move fro
mended in th
s of wetlands
orps of Engin
able for the
Fish and Wil
(Gracz 2009
ey, Alaska, p
.
Managemen
. FEMA regu
no‐rise ana
es Act will ne
ndangered s
e U.S. Fish an
dertaken to d
r the project
ppendix
rojects in th
re additiona
ational Histo
ate Historic
he lead agen
es to determ
om the plan
he initial stag
s and Water
neers to
MSB include
ldlife Service
9).
roduced by
nt Agency
lations proh
lysis that sh
eed to be
species, spe
nd Wildlife
determine w
t to affect ea
e
al
oric
ncy
mine
nning
ges
rs of
e:
e.
the
hibit
ows
cies
which
ach
SectionThe Fede
is design
or public
FHWA, ca
and prud
resource
minimis i
activities
under Se
affected
eligible fo
Section 6
projects
a non‐pa
these lan
conversio
6(f) lands
market v
EnvironEnvironm
was intro
executive
the basis
identify a
and low‐
MinorityFHWA de
Black
Hispa
other
Asian
South
Matanuska‐
4(f) and Seral Departm
ed to protec
and private
annot appro
dent alternat
has been do
impact. De m
s, features, o
ection 4(f), o
for a histori
or listing on
6(f), created
funding by t
rk/recreatio
nds is allowe
on and that
s impacted b
value and rea
mental Jusmental Justic
oduced into
e order is fo
s of race, col
and address
income pop
y Populatioefines a “min
k: a person h
anic or Latino
r Spanish cu
n American:
heast Asia, o
‐Susitna Bor
Section 6(f)ment of Tran
ct publically
e historical si
ove any proje
tive to the u
one or FHW
minimis is a d
or attributes
r a Section 1
c property (
the Nationa
as part of th
the Land and
on use witho
ed if it is dete
there will be
by a project
asonable eq
stice ce is intende
Federal acti
unded by Tit
or, or nation
the effects
ulations.”
ons nority popul
having origin
o: a person o
lture or orig
a person ha
or the Indian
rough 2035 L
) Resourcesportation A
owned park
ites. U.S. De
ect that requ
se of the lan
A determine
determinatio
qualifying a
106 finding o
i.e., an archa
al Register of
he Land and
d Water Con
out the appro
ermined tha
e provision f
need to incl
uivalent use
d to ensure
ons and fun
tle VI of the
nal origin. En
of its progra
ation” as:
s in any of t
of Mexican,
gin regardles
ving origins
n subcontine
Long Range T
es Act of 1966 i
ks, recreation
partment of
uires the use
nd and all po
es that the u
on that the p
a park, recre
of no advers
aeological, h
f Historic Pla
Water Cons
nservation Fu
oval of the N
t there are n
for a replace
ude replace
efulness and
that Federa
ding by Exec
Civil Rights
nvironmenta
ams, policies
he black rac
Puerto Rica
s of race
in any of the
ent
Transportat
ncluded a p
n areas, wild
f Transporta
e of this land
ossible plann
use of the pr
project wou
ation area, o
e effect or n
historic, or c
aces).
servation Ac
und. These l
National Par
no practicab
ement prope
ement with la
location rel
al actions tre
cutive Order
Act, which p
al Justice req
s, and activit
cial groups of
n, Cuban, Ce
e original pe
tion Plan: Te
rovision, Sec
dlife and wat
ation agencie
d unless the
ning to minim
roperty wou
ld not adver
or refuge for
no historic p
ultural resou
ct, protects s
ands cannot
k Service. Co
ble alternativ
erty. Mitigat
and of at lea
ative to the
eat all popula
r 12898 of 1
prohibits dis
quires Feder
ties on “mino
f Africa
entral or Sou
eoples of the
chnical Appe
ction 4(f), w
terfowl refu
es, including
re is no feas
mize harm to
ld have a de
rsely affect t
r projection
roperties
urce determ
state and loc
t be convert
onversion of
ves to the
ion for Secti
ast the same
impacted la
ations equal
994. This
crimination
ral agencies
ority popula
uth America
e Far East,
endix
119
hich
ges,
g
sible
o the
e
the
mined
cal
ed to
f
ion
e
and.
lly. It
on
to
ations
a, or
Matanus
120
Amer
North
ident
Nativ
peop
Data from
in the MS
the locat
Low IncFHWA de
persons w
dispersed
policy, or
at or belo
approxim
the numb
Census B
income p
populatio
ska‐Susitna B
rican Indian
h America, S
tification thr
ve Hawaiian
les of Hawa
m the ACS w
SB. Figure 37
tion of minor
come Popuefines a “low
who live in g
d/transient p
r activity. FH
ow the Depa
mation for th
ber of perso
Bureau produ
populations)
ons.
Borough 203
and Alaska N
South Americ
rough tribal a
and Other P
ii, Guam, Sa
was used to d
7 shows a su
rity populati
ulations w income po
geographic p
persons who
HWA defines
artment of H
he number o
ons below th
uct, was use
in the MSB
35 Long Rang
Native: a pe
ca (including
affiliation or
Pacific Island
moa, or oth
determine th
ummary of t
ions.
pulation” as
proximity, an
o will be sim
s “low incom
Health and H
of people bel
e Census Bu
ed to determ
. Figure 38 s
ge Transport
rson having
g Central Am
r community
der: a person
er Pacific Isl
he number a
he recomme
s any readily
nd if circums
milarly affecte
me” as a pers
Human Servic
low the DHH
ureau povert
mine the num
hows the lo
tation Plan:
origins in an
merica), and
y recognition
n having orig
ands.
and percenta
ended roadw
y identifiable
stances warr
ed by a prop
son whose m
ces (DHHS) p
HS poverty g
ty threshold
mber of hous
cation of pro
Technical A
ny of the ori
who mainta
n
gins in any of
age of minor
way projects
e group of lo
rant, geogra
posed FHWA
median hous
poverty guid
guidelines in
in that area
seholds in po
ojects in rela
ppendix
ginal people
ains cultural
f the origina
rity populati
s in relation
ow‐income
phically
A program,
ehold incom
delines. The
a certain ar
a. The ACS, a
overty (low‐
ation to thes
e of
al
ion
to
me is
best
ea is
a
se
F
Figure 37. Mino
ority Populationns
Matanuska‐Sus
sitna Borough 20035 Long Range
e Transportationn Plan: Technica
al Appendix
121
M
1
F
Matanuska‐Susi
122
Figure 38. Low I
itna Borough 20
Income Populat
035 Long Range
tions
Transportation
n Plan: Technical Appendix
Matanuska‐Sus
This page in
sitna Borough 20
ntentionally left b
035 Long Range
blank.
e Transportationn Plan: Technica
al Appendix
123
Matanus
124
ska‐Susitna B
Borough 20335 Long Rang
Attac
ge Transport
chmen
tation Plan:
nt A
Technical A
ppendix
Date: Friday, June 27, 2014
Project: MSB Long Range Transportation Plan
To: Mat-Su Borough LRTP Technical Advisory Committee
From: Murph O’Brien, Project Manager MMO
Subject: Travel Demand Model Calibration Results
Memo
Background
The purpose of this memorandum is to document the travel demand model calibration results. The purpose of the calibration process is to ensure that the model replicates traffic volumes on the network of main roads in the Mat-Su Borough.
Model Update
Based on the agreement with the project Technical Advisory Committee, the HDR study team performed a calibration review of the Parks Highway Alternative Corridor (PHAC) model to ensure that the calibration results for major roads, in addition to the Parks Highway, were within acceptable limits. The modeled area includes the most densely populated part of the Borough, extending from Willow and Big Lake in the west to Sutton and Butte in the east, Fishhook in the north and to the Parks-Glenn junction and Point MacKenzie in the south. HDR used the existing roadway network data to evaluate overall model performance by comparing model volume estimates to Matanuska-Susitna Borough (MSB) and Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) traffic counts. The validation/calibration criteria were developed based on the Federal Highway Administration’s Travel Demand Validation and Reasonableness Checking Manual. Transportation Modeling Process
The transportation demand model is a representation of the transportation facilities within the MSB modeled area and the travel patterns on these facilities. The model contains inventories of the existing roadway facilities, and of housing units and employment, organized by traffic analysis zones (TAZs). During the calibration process, model-generated traffic volumes are compared to current traffic counts. Unlike modeling of future traffic volumes, for calibration the model uses current household and employment data to develop the estimates of current traffic volumes. Model parameters are adjusted to achieve the most accurate area-wide replication of current traffic volumes. When the model-produced volumes match traffic counts within an acceptable range of error, the model can then be used to test future year alternative roadway improvements.
1
Roadway Network
Attributes of road segments in the network database were refined with input from MSB, DOT&PF and a review of existing conditions. Road network attributes include number of travel lanes, travel direction, name, functional classification, speed (mph), presence of median, area type and capacity by lane. Trip Generation and Distribution
Socioeconomic data, primarily households and employment by travel analysis zone (TAZ) for the MSB area, was updated for the PHAC project. Future employment data were disaggregated into 13 employment categories, and future location of employment was developed for each. Location of future households was based on the results of a charrette convened for that specific purpose, along with consideration of land suitability and related factors. The employment and household distributions were reviewed and approved by MSB Planning and Public Works staff. Subsequent model trip generation by trip purpose was developed and is presented in Table 1.
Table 1: 2010 MSB Trips by Purposes Purpose Trips % of All Trips
Home based Work 44,500 17% Home based Shop 20,400 8% Home based School 26,100 10% Home based Other 84,500 33% Non Home based Work 20,200 8% Non Home based non Work 63,200 24% Total Trips by All Purposes 258,900 100% Source: HDR Engineering, Inc., May 2014
Traffic Assignment
The purpose of traffic assignment is to assign vehicle trips to specific paths, or routes, in the transportation network. Trip assignment is a function of the shortest travel time along paths between zones, and the level of congestion on the links within those paths. Vehicle trips for the study area were assigned to the transportation network using the TransCAD User Equilibrium Assignment Algorithm which uses an iterative process to achieve a convergent solution, in which no travelers can improve their travel times by shifting routes. Figure 1 shows the 2010 traffic assignment within the MSB area. Level of Service (LOS) based on volume-capacity ratio was calculated and is also presented. Model Calibration/Validation
The purpose of validation and reasonableness checking is to confirm the ability of the model to predict future behavior by comparing its predictions to existing observations. The FHWA Travel Model Validation and Reasonableness Checking Manual, Second Edition (2010) and the Ohio Department of Transportation’s Ohio Certified Traffic Manual (2007) are the two main references used in this process.
2
Validation involves a review of each model component and comparing its prediction to observed behavior. This section provides a comparison of model-predicted traffic volumes with observed traffic counts. Figure 1 shows the 2010 existing model volumes within the MSB area. Level of Service (LOS) was calculated based on the volume-capacity ratio to identify roadway segments operating at unacceptable LOS E or F. LOS analysis indicates that the roadway network within the MSB modeled area is operating at acceptable LOS C or better (V/C <0.71), for the most part. Many segments along Palmer-Wasilla Highway north of Parks Highway as well as Parks Highway between Seward Meridian Road and Lucille Street operate at LOS D (V/C 0.71 to 0.89). A few segments along Knik-Goose Bay Road, south of the Palmer-Wasilla Highway operate at unacceptable LOS E (V/C 0.89 to 1.0) or F (V/C >1). Road users may perceive different peak hour directional congestion, not presented in this exhibit. Traffic Counts
Traffic counts were gathered from the Alaska DOT&PF website1. There were 205 locations identified to have available traffic counts data against which the model results were compared for validation. Cutline Analysis
Cutlines provide a comparison of modeled volumes to observed counts along a corridor containing multiple facilities. Figure 3 introduces FHWA validation guidelines for cutlines. The figure shows that maximum percent error decreases as screenline or cutline volume increases.
1 www.dot.state.ak.us/stwdplng/mapping/adt.shtml 3
Figure 1: Existing Level of Service and Daily Traffic Volume in Thousands of Vehicles per Day
4
The results of the cutline analysis are summarized in Table 2 showing a comparison of model volume estimates and observed traffic counts for facilities crossing each cutline. The table shows that for all cutlines the difference between the estimated and observed traffic is well within the guidelines shown in Figure 2.
Table 2: Cutline Analysis Results
# Traffic Count
Model Flow %-Difference
Max Desirable Deviation
Within Target RMSE Volume/
Capacity
1 15,131 14,346 5% 50% Yes 12% 0.2
2 32,297 31,981 1% 40% Yes 6% 0.5
3 57,380 52,707 8% 32% Yes 18% 0.4
4 46,127 53,015 15% 35% Yes 18% 0.6
5 28,349 31,352 11% 42% Yes 16% 0.4
6 13,509 13,497 0% 55% Yes 27% 0.2
7 28,400 31,551 11% 41% Yes 16% 0.3
8 19,960 18,525 7% 46% Yes 10% 0.6
9 34,373 36,172 5% 38% Yes 12% 0.3
Overall 275,526 283,146 3% 17% Yes 17% 0.4 RMSE stands for Percent Root Mean Squared Error (see page 7, below) Source: HDR Engineering, Inc., May 2014
Figure 3 shows the cutline locations and their respective volume-capacity ratio. The traffic is operating at acceptable LOS C or better at each of the cutline locations.
Figure 2: Validation Guidelines for Cutlines
5
Figure 3: 2010 Cutline Analysis Results
6
Assignment Scatterplots
Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient (R) is a standard statistical measure that reflects how linear the relationship is between two data sets. Scatterplots of modeled traffic volumes versus observed traffic volumes can be useful tool in model validation. While there are no hard and fast guidelines for R-Squared results, the closer the values are to 1 the more linear the relationship between the two data sets. Figure 4 shows a scatterplot comparing model estimated daily traffic volumes compared to observed traffic counts. Model results show an R-Squared value of 0.96 indicating a high degree of correspondence between model volume estimates and observed traffic volumes.
Percent Root Mean Squared Error
Percent Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) is a measure of the accuracy of the traffic assignment that shows the average error between the observed and modeled traffic volumes on links with traffic counts. Percent RMSE is summarized by link volume group. The Ohio Certified Traffic Manual identifies acceptable ranges of percent RMSE by directional link volume group.
Figure 4: Daily Traffic Volume Scatterplot
7
The Ohio percent RMSE targets by volume group are shown graphically in Figure 5. The figure shows that modeled traffic volumes are within acceptable ranges of the observed traffic counts. The overall percent RMSE for daily traffic volume is 21. Reasonableness by Functional Class
The deviation between the traffic counts and model volumes by roadway functional class was measured against the Ohio Certified Traffic Manual guidelines. Table 3 shows the comparison of model results and traffic counts. The table shows that modeled traffic volumes are within acceptable ranges of the observed traffic counts by various roadway functional classifications.
Table 3: Percent Assignment Error by Functional Class
Functional Classification Traffic Counts
Model Flow
%-Difference
Suggested Range by Ohio Manual
Freeways/Expressways 456,413 481,132 5% +7%
Principal Arterials 165,567 163,370 1% +10%
Minor Arterials 190,738 193,731 2% +10%
Collectors 172,759 164,305 5% +15%
All Links 985,477 1,002,538 2% +5%* *Ohio Manual does not have specific criteria under this category. Florida DOT Guideline has been used in stead. Source: HDR Engineering, Inc., May 2014
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
180%
200%
% RMSE
Volume Group
Model Results Ohio RMSE Targett
Figure 5: Percent RMSE by Volume Group
8
Conclusions
The model validation and reasonableness checking measures show that the model is satisfactorily predicting observed traffic volumes, and that the model is suitable for use in future roadway improvement needs analyses for the MSB LRTP.
9
M
Long
Pu
Matan
g Range
ublic In
uska S
e Tran
nvolve
Susitna
sporta
ment S
J
Borou
ation Pl
Summa
DRA
July 20
ugh
lan
ary
AFT
017
This page intentionally left blank.
Matanuska‐Susitna Borough 2035 Long Range Transportation PlanPublic Involvement Appendix
i
ContentsIntroduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1
Website ......................................................................................................................................................... 1
Interactive Comment Map .................................................................................................................... 2
Public Meetings/Online Open Houses .......................................................................................................... 2
Public Meetings/Online Open Houses ‐ July 2014 .................................................................................... 3
Online Open House – April 2016 ............................................................................................................... 4
Tough Choices Survey ........................................................................................................................... 7
Public Meeting/Online Open House – March 2017 .................................................................................. 8
Workshops .................................................................................................................................................... 8
Workshop #1 ........................................................................................................................................... 10
Workshop #2 ........................................................................................................................................... 11
Workshop #3 ........................................................................................................................................... 12
Workshop #4 ........................................................................................................................................... 13
Workshop #5 ‐ Alternatives Analysis/Results Workshop ........................................................................ 15
Other Outreach Efforts ............................................................................................................................... 17
Fact Sheets .............................................................................................................................................. 17
Small Group Presentations ..................................................................................................................... 18
Attachment A: Tough Choices Survey Results
Attachment B: Comment Summary
Attachment C: Public Involvement Plan
Matanuska‐Susitna Borough 2035 Long Range Transportation PlanPublic Involvement Appendix
ii
Abbreviations
ARRC Alaska Railroad Corporation
ATV All‐Terrain Vehicle
DOT&PF Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan
MOA Municipality of Anchorage
MSB Matanuska‐Susitna Borough
OLOH Online Open House
RSA Road Service Area
TDM Transportation Demand Modeling
TSM Transportation System Management
IntroduBetween J
Transport
that infor
potential
communit
and helpe
Stakehold
businesse
providers
Corporati
concerned
process w
C
In
G
Fa
P
m
The follow
LRTP Upd
WebsitA project
updates, a
and allow
project te
products,
MSB 2035
on the pro
www.msb
uctionJune 2014 an
tation Plan (L
med participa
short‐ and lo
ty helped ide
ed the LRTP re
ders in the pla
es, road servic
, the Alaska D
on (ARRC), th
d individuals
were to:
ommunicate
nvolve a wide
enerate publ
acilitate comm
rovide inform
making proces
wing sections
ate.
tewebsite prov
archived mee
wed the public
eam directly. A
including the
5 LRTP Updat
oject website
blrtp2035.com
nd June 2017,
RTP) Update
ants about tr
ng‐term proj
entify problem
espond to com
anning proces
ce areas, the
Department o
he transporta
and organiza
the project’s
spectrum of
ic interest in
munication a
mation and so
ss.
summarize th
vided project
eting materia
c to contact th
All work
e draft and fin
es, were post
e:
m.
Matanusk
the Matanus
project team
ansportation
ects and cost
ms and oppor
mmunity nee
ss included M
aviation com
of Transportat
tion industry
tions. The MS
goals and ob
stakeholders
the LRTP;
nd understan
olicit feedback
he communit
ls,
he
nal
ted
ka‐Susitna Bo
1
ska‐Susitna B
conducted a
challenges, p
ts. Informatio
tunities, info
eds.
MSB residents
munity, local
tion and Publ
, Regional an
SB’s commun
bjectives;
s;
nding among
k at key point
ty and stakeh
1 Website H
orough 2035 L
orough (MSB
a variety of pu
proposed solu
on provided to
rmed stakeho
, MSB official
l government
lic Facilities (D
d Village Nat
nity participat
all project pa
ts in the proce
older outreac
Home Page
Long Range TPublic Invo
B) 2035 Long
ublic involvem
utions, and th
o and receive
olders of tech
ls, community
ts and advisor
DOT&PF), the
ive Corporati
tion goals for
articipants; an
ess to inform
ch efforts dur
ransportationolvement App
Range
ment activitie
he trade‐offs
ed from the
hnical solutio
y councils,
ry boards, tra
e Alaska Railr
ions, and oth
the LRTP upd
nd
m the decision
ring the MSB
n Planpendix
es
of
ns,
ansit
oad
her
date
‐
2035
InteractiAn interac
the websi
stakehold
the map t
site‐specif
map optio
significant
will impro
facilitate c
of travel w
PublicThe 2035
informatio
or other a
meetings,
one‐on‐on
An OLOH
that is acc
format as
period ass
audience
attend a m
users to v
public rec
All public
announce
email sen
All meetin
MSB LRTP
members
the comm
person pu
iveCommenctive commen
ite’s home pa
ders with an o
to draw lines
fic comments
on was to ide
t transportat
ove safety, re
commerce w
were address
MeetingsLRTP Update
on about the
appropriate v
, typically 2 h
ne interaction
is a web‐base
cessible 24 ho
a public ope
sociated with
and the com
meeting virtu
view videos an
cord. The mat
meetings/OL
ement; annou
t to the proje
ngs featured a
P. Participants
of the plann
ment forms pr
ublic meeting
ntMapnt map was in
age. The map
opportunity to
or place poin
s. The purpos
ntify the mos
ion improvem
duce congest
ithin the MSB
ed.
s/OnlineOe used traditio
2035 LRTP. T
enues to acco
ours long, all
n with projec
ed tool that t
ours a day to
n house, with
h the meeting
plete remova
ally where, w
nd PowerPoin
terials for eac
LOHs were ad
uncements on
ect mailing lis
a series of po
s were invited
ing team pres
rovided, or on
s.
Matanusk
ncluded on
provided
o click on
nts and add
se of the
st
ments that
tion, and
B. All modes
OpenHouonal public m
The public me
ommodate pa
owed for info
t team memb
akes an in‐pe
any stakehol
h the opportu
gs. Benefits of
al of time and
when, and for
nt presentatio
ch MSB OLOH
dvertised in th
n the MSB we
t.
osters with inf
d to sign in, th
sent. Attende
nline through
ka‐Susitna Bo
2
useseetings and o
eetings were
arties interes
ormation sha
bers.
erson public m
der with inte
unity to be “li
f an OLOH inc
d travel barrie
however lon
ons, and to m
H corresponde
he Mat‐Su Va
ebsite, Facebo
formation an
hen to peruse
ees were also
the website
orough 2035 L
online open h
organized an
sted in or affe
ring in additio
meeting and t
rnet access. A
ve” during th
clude an incre
ers—enabling
ng or often th
make commen
ed to a public
lley Frontiers
ook page, and
d graphics pr
e the posters
o invited to su
or OLOHs tha
Long Range TPublic Invo
houses (OLOH
d held at com
ected by the u
on to comme
transfers it to
An OLOH has
he entire publ
eased diversit
g potential pa
ey choose. Th
nts that can b
c meetings an
sman; a radio
d community
roviding key p
and ask ques
ubmit comme
at ran concur
ransportationolvement App
Hs) to share
mmunity cent
update. These
ent submittal
o an online fo
the same ge
lic comment
ty of the proj
rticipants to
he OLOH allow
be added to th
nd workshops
o public servic
y calendar; an
points about t
stions of the
ents either us
rrently with th
n Planpendix
ters
e
and
rum
neral
ect
ws
he
s.
ce
d an
the
ing
he in‐
PublicMThe first s
project to
soliciting
Three pub
Ju
Ju
Ju
A total of
public tra
changes, a
The OLOHJuly 15 toDuring th
visits to th
Protocol a
were 125
and 74 fro
a variety o
These visi
users. Fift
Between
total of 93
comment
Fi
V
se
In
ab
A
co
Th
Fi
Se
re
Tw
Meetings/series of publ
o the commun
public input.
blic meetings
uly 16, 2014 –
uly 17, 2014 –
uly 24, 2014 –
38 individual
nsit services,
and specific r
H was availab August 11, 2is period, the
he OLOH. Acc
addresses tha
visitors from
om Anchorag
of locations, m
its represent
ty‐two comm
the comment
3 comments w
ts include:
ifty individua
alley Mover w
ervice.
n addition to c
bout addition
bout 14 com
onvenience, a
here were six
ive comment
everal comm
esidential are
wo comment
/OnlineOpic meetings/O
nity, seeking i
were held on
– Sutton Publ
– Faith Bible F
– Fire Station
ls signed the
bike paths, la
road projects.
le for public r2014. ere were more
cording to the
at visited the
m Wasilla, 32 f
e. Other visit
most in the Lo
a total of 249
ents were su
ts submitted
were received
ls submitted
was mentione
comments ge
nal service da
menters were
and contribut
x comments in
ers mentione
enters stated
eas, with some
ters were con
Matanusk
penHouseOLOHs was he
input on tran
n the followin
ic Library, Sut
Fellowship Ch
6‐1, Wasilla
public meetin
and use
.
review from
e than 331
e Internet
site, there
from Palmer,
s came from
ower 48.
9 individual
bmitted thro
at public mee
d for the MSB
comments in
ed by 34 com
enerally suppo
ys/stop locat
e in favor of b
tion to an enh
n favor of a W
ed roundabou
d their hopes
e comments
ncerned abou
ka‐Susitna Bo
3
es‐July20eld in July 201
sportation ne
ng dates:
tton
hurch, Big Lak
ng attendanc
ugh the OLOH
etings and we
B LRTP. Highli
support of p
mmenters, and
orting public
tions for the e
bike paths, m
hanced qualit
Wasilla bypass
uts as a more
that transpor
focused spec
t extending N
orough 2035 L
01414 for the pu
eeds, discussi
ke
e lists. Partici
H during the
eb comments
ights/themes
public transit.
d 16 individua
transit, there
existing trans
many advocati
ty of life.
s.
efficient alte
rtation plann
cifically on acc
Nelson Road t
Long Range TPublic Invo
rpose of intro
ing potential
ipants expres
comment pe
s received thr
s from the pu
Support spec
als supported
e were specif
it services.
ng for their s
ernative to tra
ing will consi
cess to low‐in
to Fairview Lo
ransportationolvement App
oducing the
solutions, an
ssed support
riod.
rough the OLO
blic meeting
cifically for th
d a commuter
ic comments
safety,
affic lights.
der access to
ncome housin
oop.
n Planpendix
nd
for
OH, a
he
r rail
o
ng.
O
O
th
O
Sy
Participat
house eve
Tr
m
Th
d
Th
A
n
OnlineThis OLOH The purpo
MSB thro
the OLOH
from Palm
remaining
and the Lo
included b
base case
look like i
transport
The MSB
comment
survey (se
Bike/Pede
In
R
1 United St
One comment
One comment
he Glenn High
One comment
ystem and th
ting project te
ents:
ransit for hom
more affordab
he Parks High
evelopment.
he Moose Cre
45 mile per h
ot.
OpenHouH was held fro
ose of the OL
ugh a variety
H1. There were
mer, and 23 fr
g from other
ower 48. Info
background o
e assumption
n 2035, and p
ation modes.
received app
ts, as well as 5
ee below). Th
estrian Facilit
nclude bike pa
oad to Hatch
tates visitors o
er asked why
er felt that th
hway should g
er was conce
e lack of pede
eam member
meless youth
ble housing is
hway Alternat
eek Bridge on
hour (mph) sp
use–Aprilom April 29 to
OH was to ob
of transporta
e 60 visitors f
rom Anchorag
parts of the M
ormation on t
on the LRTP, i
of what cond
presented alt
roximately 80
5 emailed and
e following is
ties
aths along all
er Pass, Glen
nly; this does n
Matanusk
y the Port to H
he completion
greatly decre
erned about t
estrian and b
s also receive
is a growing
available.
te Corridor Pr
n the Glenn H
peed limit thr
2016o June 15, 20
btain the pub
ation options
from Wasilla,
ge with the
MSB, Alaska
he site
dentified a
ditions might
ernative
0 map‐based
d mailed com
s a summary o
major roadw
n Highway to
not include ind
ka‐Susitna Bo
4
Houston rout
n of the Seldo
ase the traffi
he increase in
ike trails.
ed the followi
need, especia
roject’s prefe
Highway is uns
rough Sutton
016.
lic’s thoughts
s, from now th
7
mments for the
of those com
ways (includin
o Edgerton Pa
dividuals from o
orough 2035 L
te was not inc
on Bogard co
c on the Palm
n high‐speed
ing informal c
ally in outlyin
erred route is
safe and need
is acceptable
s on how to im
hrough 2035.
e OLOH and c
ments.
ng Bogard Roa
arks Road).
outside the Un
Long Range TPublic Invo
cluded in the
rridor from P
mer‐Wasilla H
traffic on the
comments at
ng areas of th
too close to
ds to be fixed
e, but a 65 m
mprove trans
. More than 1
companion “T
ad, Comsat R
nited States.
ransportationolvement App
modeled ma
Pittman Road
Highway.
e narrow Spri
community o
e MSB where
residential
d.
ph speed lim
sportation in t
160 people vi
Tough Choice
oad, Fishhoo
n Planpendix
ps.
to
nger
open
e
it is
the
sited
es”
k
Matanuska‐Susitna Borough 2035 Long Range Transportation PlanPublic Involvement Appendix
5
Plans and committees have identified the need for separated pedestrian/bike facilities (Sutton
to Palmer).
Add more bike trail connections (specific locations).
Increase shoulder size to improve bike/pedestrian safety (Edgerton Parks Road).
Work with DOT&PF to obtain bike path/pedestrian walkways (Talkeetna Spur Road at Main
Street).
Use colored bike lanes to distinguish between parking and pathway areas.
Address opposition to bike lanes (Comsat Road—private property impacts).
Fix bike/pedestrian conflicts with traffic turning into 3 Bears on Knik‐Goose Bay Road.
Widen shoulders on narrow roads to reduce bike conflicts. Congestion
Find ways to mitigate morning and evening congestion on the Glenn Highway. Connectivity
Arterials
o Extend specific roadways (Trunk Road, Seldon Road, Seldon Road Phase II, Shoreline
Drive, Shennum Drive).
o Increase number of arterials to decrease congestion/as an alternative to the Parks
Highway.
o Connect Hollywood Road to Knik‐Goose Bay Road (east‐west connectivity).
o Extend S. Foothills Drive to the Parks Highway (north‐south connectivity).
o Build a bypass around downtown Wasilla.
Connectors
o Reduce congestion by completing the Tex‐Al Road connection, moving traffic off Palmer‐
Fishhook Road and Wasilla‐Fishhook Road.
o Provide more subdivisions with access to Palmer‐Fishhook Road and Wasilla‐Fishhook
Road (connection between Engstrom and Tex‐Al roads).
o Complete the Seward Meridian Parkway (to reduce traffic in subdivision near schools).
o Extend Felton Street from the high school pool to the Palmer‐Wasilla Highway.
o Extend Hemmer Road.
Public Process
Not all input is considered equally (geographic bias). Design
Nelson Road Bridge is structurally deficient and does not meet 100‐year flood standards.
Matanuska‐Susitna Borough 2035 Long Range Transportation PlanPublic Involvement Appendix
6
Improve timing of stop lights (or eliminate lights along the Parks Highway near downtown
Wasilla; e.g., Herman Road).
Do not use roundabouts on larger streets/intersections (safety, truck size).
Use roundabouts (specific locations; e.g., College Drive and Trunk Road, KGB at Mack/S.
Heritage Farm roads, Vine and Knik‐Goose Bay roads, Bogard and Seldon roads)
Pave unconnected stretches of road, such as W. Donna Marie Lane.
Safety
Provide additional entrance/secondary access to hospital from the Parks or Glenn highway.
Include designated off‐road, motorized vehicle lanes, separated from bike paths (e.g.,
Matanuska Bridge to the Butte, Palmer‐Fishhook Road).
Decrease speed and add a no passing zone near Talkeetna Public Library (turning traffic).
Re‐route the railroad around Wasilla.
Plant grass along roadsides to delineate road areas.
Increase shoulder fill to eliminate sharp dropoffs (Wasilla‐Fishhook Road, Seldon Road to
Palmer‐Fishhook Road).
Use traffic calming/speed bumps on Talkeetna intersection near Y Lake.
Address falling rocks near Long Lake Recreation Site.
Add an egress route from the area near France Road and the Palmer‐Wasilla Highway, which will
also reduce congestion at that intersection.
Add shoulders and stabilize edges on E. Seldon Road.
Transit
Build light rail to Anchorage.
Expand Valley Mover (pickup) to Palmer.
Increase opportunities for alternative transit solutions such as dual‐mode vehicles.
(rail/bus/microbus system; e.g., JR Hokkaido Railway Company, circa 2006).
Utilize Alaska‐engineered Diesel Multiple Units to provide rail service between the Valley and
Anchorage.
Policy
MSB should assume road power to fund projects using an area‐wide levy.
Do not build roads that can’t be maintained.
Implement Complete Streets program.
Parking
Add parking at Palmer‐Fishhook and Trunk roads. Other/Site‐Specific
G
B
Pa
Se
Ev
K
Pa
En
tr
ToughChA “Tough
platform f
decisions
lenn Highway
o Improv
especi
o Add rig
ogard Road
o Chang
at Bog
Road e
o Redes
Bogard
backup
throug
almer‐Wasilla
o Add a
o Four‐la
o Improv
Road.
o Add gu
eward Meridi
o Four‐la
also re
to Tate
o Extend
vergreen Ave
o Add a
Street
nik‐Goose Ba
o Add a
o Raise t
o Four‐la
arks Highway
o Add a
Interse
ncourage new
ransportation
hoicesSurveChoices” Sur
for involveme
regarding fut
y
ve lighting, st
ally at access
ght‐turn lane
e the stop sig
gard Road and
extension.
ign the inters
d/Seldon road
ps and crashe
ghs).
a Highway
center turn la
ane the highw
ve the interse
uard rails nea
ian Parkway
ane the highw
educe traffic o
e Drive to Sel
d the road an
enue
through‐lane
.
y Road
right turn at
the speed lim
ane the highw
y
left‐turn lane
ection with Ta
w technologie
n that will wor
eyrvey was desig
ent in the pla
ture transpor
Matanusk
triping, and si
s points.
from Arctic B
gn to a stop li
d the Bogard
section at
ds to reduce
es (reduce cut
ane.
way.
ection at Fran
ar Begich Driv
way, which w
on Bogard Ro
don Road.
d add a contr
e and center t
Clapp Street.
mit on Clapp S
way (but do u
e from north i
alkeetna Spu
es and design
rk in the Alas
gned for com
nning proces
rtation improv
ka‐Susitna Bo
7
ignage along
Boulevard on
ght
t‐
nce
ve.
ould
oad
rolled interse
turn lane betw
treet.
upgrades in th
into Cubby’s
r Highway).
ners to engine
ka environme
mmunity mem
s. The purpos
vements. The
orough 2035 L
dark points o
to the Glenn
ection at E. Se
ween the Gle
he meantime
Market (near
eer new or up
ent.
mbers and var
se of the surv
e MSB does n
Long Range TPublic Invo
of the Glenn H
Highway.
eldon Road.
enn Highway a
).
r the Parks Hi
pdated modes
ious MSB sta
vey was to he
not have enou
ransportationolvement App
Highway,
and S. Bailey
ighway
s of
keholders as
elp the MSB m
ugh funds to
n Planpendix
a
make
Matanuska‐Susitna Borough 2035 Long Range Transportation PlanPublic Involvement Appendix
8
implement all the needed improvements, and wanted input from its residents and stakeholders
regarding how it should prioritize transportation decisions. Eighty‐one respondents participated in the
survey, either in person or online. The results of the 15‐question survey and online comment map
illustrated a strong desire for increased multi‐modal transportation facilities in the MSB. For complete
survey results, see Attachment A.
PublicMeeting/OnlineOpenHouse–March2017The last series of public meetings/OLOHs was held in March 2017 for the purpose of introducing the
project to the community, seeking input on transportation needs, discussing potential solutions, and
soliciting public input.
Three public meetings were held on the following dates:
March 28, 2017 – Sutton Public Library, Sutton
March 29, 2017 – Fire Station 9‐2, Houston
March 30, 2017 – Fire Station 6‐1, Wasilla
A total of 27 individuals signed the public meeting attendance lists.
The OLOH was available for public review from March 28 15 to June 14, 2017. During this period, there were more than 20 visits to the OLOH. Between the comments submitted at public meetings, web comments received through the public
meeting and OLOH, and comments submitted via email a total of 161 comments were received for the
MSB LRTP. Highlights/themes from the public comments include:
Bike/Pedestrian Facilities
Add informational signage on bike networks
Have trails on both sides of the road
Additional bike paths are needed
o Colony Middle School to Trunk Road
o Connect Palmer‐Wasilla Highway to Bogard
Need improved crossings for bikes and pedestrians
o Old Glenn Hwy at Mat River Park,
o Valley Way,
o Clark Wolverine,
o Virginia,
o Smith Road,
o Maud Road
Congestion /Safety
Address Bogard/Engstrom/Green Hills Intersection
Matanuska‐Susitna Borough 2035 Long Range Transportation PlanPublic Involvement Appendix
9
Address safety/congestion issue near Caribou and Bogard Road intersection
Foothills/KGB intersection is congested
If there is a new Visitor’s Center, it may cause congestion in the summer
Improve intersection safety
Arctic is becoming more difficult to cross
Turn lanes are needed in more locations Connectivity
Provide additional connection to landfill
Connect Seldon Road ‐ Beverly Lake Road to Pittman Road
Need bypass around Wasilla
Safety
DOT, DMV, and School District should partner to provide drivers education classes
Additional turn lanes are needed at various locations inlcuiding:
o Glenn Highway for Marsh Road
o for traffic headed south on the Glenn and turning west onto the new Bogard
o on KGB for Clapp St turns
Additional informational signs
The Smith Road ‐ Maud road area is dangerous for pedestrians
Green Street access to Bogard is dangerous
The access to/from the Baseball Fields on KGB is very dangerous
Improve turn into and out of Matanuska Lakes
Improve traffic from Engstrom and Green Hills to Bogard
Transit
Build commuter rail
More public transportation
Parking
Need larger parking area at Butte trailhead and/or roadside parking Other
Improve access to schools
Address parts of S Old Glenn and S Knik River Rd are at risk due to erosion
Build Knik Arm Crossing
No driveway access on the arterial section of Bogard Road or on arterials in general
Require developers to do traffic impact analysis
The borough needs zoning regulations.
Matanuska‐Susitna Borough 2035 Long Range Transportation PlanPublic Involvement Appendix
10
Lakes Boulevard needs major repair
Lake Street needs to be paved for dust control
Locate schools away from major roads
A listing of the comments received on the draft LRTP can be found in Attachment B.
WorkshopsInvolving a broad range of interested parties throughout the planning process is the key to a successful
community plan. Workshops brought together representative groups and individuals to discuss specific
areas of interest. The MSB held four different workshops during the LRTP planning process. Participants
were identified based on geography, area of interest, and organizational representation.
Workshop#1On the morning of July 23, 2014, representatives from community councils, chambers of commerce, and
other interested organizations were invited to participate in a workshop to help the project team
identify issues facing the MSB transportation system. Participants were asked to contribute their
thoughts and reasoning on what they think is and is not working within the MSB transportation system,
as well as other issues that should be considered as part of the LRTP.
During the meeting, participants were asked what they thought was working in the MSB transportation
system. Participants indicated that the MSB’s consideration of population growth was working, and was
a good thing.
When asked what was not working, participants indicated that the following areas need improvements
or more consideration:
MSB needs more clear communication of information.
Signal timing along the Parks Highway and the Palmer‐Wasilla Highway is not working. It should
be better synchronized.
MSB needs more consistent data for planning purposes. The MSB, the DOT&PF, the Knik Arm
Bridge and Toll Authority, and other agencies should be using consistent information.
The Parks Highway is not efficient.
MSB needs to better consider where it wants economic development, recreation, and other
growth to occur, as not all transportation needs are related to congestion.
MSB cannot keep kicking the can farther down the road; it needs to get roads up to standard so
maintenance needs are not excessive.
The group was asked what future needs the MSB transportation system will have during the LRTP
planning period. The following future needs were discussed:
MSB needs roads that support future development.
Matanuska‐Susitna Borough 2035 Long Range Transportation PlanPublic Involvement Appendix
11
The DOT&PF should complete the paving of Palmer‐ and Willow‐Fishhook roads through
Hatcher Pass to create a paved loop road, which will greatly enhance tourism.
Railroad crossing overpasses such as Montana Creek (Milepost 102) should be considered;
however, it was mentioned that such an overpass could hinder road rehabilitation.
Pittman Road needs an upgrade.
MSB needs a Park and Ride on the Port MacKenzie side of the Knik Arm Crossing.
More tourist pullouts are necessary.
Last, when asked what other issues MSB planners need to consider for this LRTP, the group mentioned
the following:
What is the ARRC doing? MSB needs to consider their plans.
Consider the role of utilities; MSB needs to better coordinate with them. Also, what can utility
users do?
Consider how we can get the ARRC engaged in the LRTP process.
MSB needs to consider access to the Vienna Woods subdivision (to Pittman Road).
Fish passage is a DOT&PF, MSB, and ARRC issue.
There needs to be fairness when planning and funding road maintenance; consider major road
users, not just Road Service Area (RSA) residents.
Twenty people participated in the workshop.
Workshop#2On the afternoon of July 23, 2014, elected officials, city and MSB staff members, along with
representatives from local businesses, utility providers, the Transportation Advisory Board, state
agencies, and the RSAs, were invited to participate in a workshop to help the project team identify
issues facing the MSB transportation system. Participants were asked to contribute their thoughts and
reasoning on what they think is and is not working within the MSB transportation system, as well as
what issues should be considered in the LRTP, their funding priorities, and suggested transportation
solutions.
Workshop participants were divided into small groups for a transportation project prioritization
exercise. Each group was given a list of all identified improvement projects, roadway and trail maps, and
a worksheet, as well as paper “bills” totaling $1.7 billion to symbolize anticipated state, local, and
federal funds that would be available over the next 20‐year planning period, to allocate. Working
together, the groups prioritized the projects they wanted to see constructed (being sure to account for
maintenance costs).
Groups, each with a facilitator from MSB Planning Department or HDR, had 40 minutes to compile their
priority lists. Following the small group work, a representative from each group presented the top five
projects from both their capital improvement projects list and their long‐term project list.
The top fo
1) Th
2) K
3) Th
4) Th
As the sm
Highlights
A
R
T
T
S
C
c
P
m
a
Forty‐one
WorkshWorkshop
event was
nodes, an
event.
To start th
look like i
were disc
A
co
Th
D
tr
ac
La
W
our projects (
he Bogard Ro
nik‐Goose Ba
he Glenn High
he Parks High
mall groups co
s from the dis
Additional pro
Road and Luci
The Alaska Ra
Transit needs
Safety corrido
Congestion ne
connectivity).
Per the Wasill
megaproject,
about 20 sma
e people parti
hop#3p #3 was held
s to seek inpu
nd to discuss d
he workshop,
n 2035. Some
ussed include
dditional ser
ommute time
he MSB need
ifferent gene
ransportation
ccommodate
and use coord
We need a tea
those most o
oad East Exten
y Road betwe
hway betwee
hway betwee
nducted the
scussions incl
ojects to cons
ille Street, an
ilroad needs
to be a part o
or projects sho
eeds to be rel
a Bypass/Par
but the price
ller projects w
icipated in th
d on the morn
ut on the LRT
different tran
, participants
e of the issue
e:
vice is neede
es.
ds more cover
erations have
n needs that s
d.
dination is ke
am approach.
Matanusk
often selected
nsion from 49
een the Palm
en the Parks H
n Lucus Road
exercise, the
ude:
sider include F
d the Port to
to be involve
of the traffic
ould be suppo
lieved on the
rks Alternative
tag was rest
would do mo
e workshop.
ning of April 2
P from area t
nsit service op
had a facilita
s that
ed during
rage.
different
should be
ey.
ka‐Susitna Bo
12
d) include:
9th State Stree
er‐Wasilla Hi
Highway and
d and Big Lake
re was discus
Fairview Loop
Parks Highw
ed in MSB tran
congestion so
orted.
Palmer‐Wasi
e, some grou
rictive. Some
re to relieve c
20, 2016 at Fi
ransit provid
ptions. In add
ated discussio
orough 2035 L
et to the Glen
ghway and Se
Arctic Road
e Road
ssion about h
p, Seldon Roa
ay in Houston
nsportation p
olution.
illa Highway (
ps recognized
e questioned i
congestion.
re Station 61
ers, to identif
ition to staff,
on about wha
Long Range TPublic Invo
nn Highway
ettlers Bay
ow best to pr
ad between W
n.
planning.
(Bogard segm
d the potenti
if spending $4
in Wasilla. T
fy priority tra
, 13 people si
at the transit s
ransportationolvement App
rioritize funds
Wasilla‐Fishho
ments,
al need for th
425 million o
he purpose o
ansit network
gned in to th
system would
n Planpendix
s.
ook
he
n
of this
ks and
e
d
The works
period an
prioritize,
The group
Highway a
WorkshWorkshop
this works
(Transpor
addition t
presentat
to indicat
Following
groups: p
changes. G
identify th
appropria
applied.
Following
report of
TDM/TSM
W
M
Th
“
tr
H
W
Th
W
m
H
Im
W
Th
Pa
shop ended w
d where MSB
using provid
p identified th
and Knik‐Goo
hop#4p #4 was held
shop was to d
rtation Dema
to staff, 48 pe
tions, the gro
e their Top 5
g that exercise
ublic transpo
Groups, each
he elements o
ate for the MS
g group discus
the key point
M
We discussed
MSB needs mu
here is a cultu
“Soft” employ
ransit passes
igh‐occupanc
We need impr
here are chan
We need bette
maintenance f
ow about rid
mplementatio
We discussed t
he LRTP shou
ark and rides
with a group e
B should have
ed maps, cor
he Parks High
ose Bay Road
d on the after
discuss issues
nd Managem
eople signed i
up was asked
alternative tr
e, participant
rtation, walk
facilitated by
of each altern
SB and where
ssions, a repre
ts of that grou
all the option
ultiple solutio
ure shift from
yer benefits a
and telecomm
cy vehicle lan
oved access t
nging expecta
er maintenan
fee should be
e pooling for
on all comes d
the need for
uld consider “
are a great t
Matanusk
exercise. Par
e fixed‐route
rridors where
way, the Gle
as key corrid
rnoon of April
s related to pu
ment/Transpo
in to the even
d to participat
ransportation
s were assign
ing/biking, TD
y an MSB or H
native solutio
e those altern
esentative fro
up’s discussio
ns presented
ons for our div
m automobile
re popular; w
muting.
e; this is expe
to medical se
ations regardi
ce of existing
considered?
schools, and
down to cost.
partnerships
walk only” ar
ool; we ident
ka‐Susitna Bo
13
rticipants wer
local bus serv
there is curr
nn Highway, T
ors for transit
l 20, 2016 at
ublic transpo
rtation Suppl
nt. Following
te in a “sticky
n solutions.
ned to one of
DM/TSM, and
HDR planner,
n they thoug
native solution
om each grou
on:
on the poster
verse commu
dependence
we think there
ensive, maybe
rvices.
ing low‐ or no
g (and any new
van pooling
.
and planning
reas.
tified several
orough 2035 L
re asked cons
vice. The grou
rent or anticip
Trunk Road, a
t service.
Fire Station 6
rtation, walk
y Manageme
informationa
y dot” exercis
four small
d land use
were asked t
ght were
ns could be
up provided a
r.
unity needs.
.
e is room for
e something
o‐cost service
w) facilities; m
for medical n
g in incident m
potential loca
Long Range TPublic Invo
sider the next
up was asked
pated deman
and the Palm
61 in Wasilla.
ing/biking, TD
ent), and land
al
se
to
a
growth with
for the distan
es.
maybe an are
needs?
management
ations (see m
ransportationolvement App
t 5‐to 20‐year
to identify a
d for transit.
mer‐Wasilla
This purpose
DM/TSM
d use changes
benefits like
nt future.
ea‐specific
.
map, attached
n Planpendix
r
nd
e of
s. In
d).
Walking a
Th
sh
N
D
W
W
W
M
W
A
Pe
of
C
Sa
lig
Th
an
ro
m
Land Use
La
b
co
fu
W
o
Th
th
to
La
co
D
co
P
B
P
and Biking
he LRTP shou
hows those.
ew pathways
o we know h
We identified
We are missing
We wonder ho
Major intersec
We discussed
laska right‐of
er zoning, we
ff the main ro
onsider winte
afety is a key
ghting, mapp
hink about pe
nd bikers thro
oundabouts –
matters.
Changes
and use plann
e a recognize
onsidered too
uture.
We discussed t
riented devel
he LRTP shou
he necessity o
ools, and tran
and use plann
orridors.
o a corridor m
orridors.
ro‐cluster dev
uild out bus r
latting code a
uld consider e
s along major
ow many peo
density node
g connectivity
ow pedestrian
ctions are dan
all‐terrain ve
f‐ways, need
e want pathw
oadways.
er trails (1st p
concern –
ing.
edestrians
ough
– their safety
ning should
ed and
ol for the
transit‐
lopment.
uld recognize
of land use
nsit should foc
ning should fo
management
velopment pl
ridership to su
adjustments (
Matanusk
existing separ
r roads would
ople use the e
s, locations fo
y, and have b
n/biking patte
nger zones.
hicles (ATVs),
to be 3 feet o
ways to school
riority) vs. su
cus on those
ocus on the c
plan, a comm
anning would
upport comm
(quick claim e
ka‐Susitna Bo
14
ated pathway
d be great.
existing pathw
or pathways.
been planning
erns will chan
, and how the
off pavement
ls, and trails a
mmer trails (
tools.
ore area first
muter rail pla
d be beneficia
muter rail.
easement for
orough 2035 L
ys – it would
ways? For com
g reactively vs
nge in 20 year
ey fit into the
, but we don’
along greenbe
2nd priority).
t, and then m
n, and focus
al.
transportatio
Long Range TPublic Invo
be great to h
mmunity vs. r
s. proactively
rs.
e equation (le
’t design path
elts would be
ove out to tra
on the preser
on) are neede
ransportationolvement App
have a map th
recreation?
y.
gal in State o
hways for the
e great to get
ansportation
rvation of exi
ed.
n Planpendix
hat
of
em).
folks
isting
Matanuska‐Susitna Borough 2035 Long Range Transportation PlanPublic Involvement Appendix
15
Transit/Public Transportation
We need multi‐modal transit.
We need additional rail stations and depots at Turner Properties, Vine Road, and Houston; get
site control for those AMP/MP.
Additional options are needed for fixed‐route services.
Fixed routes and local routes should be evenly distributed.
Transit stations are necessary in Wasilla and Palmer (transfer to express busses).
The Palmer‐Wasilla Highway is a good location for the primary transportation corridor; it is
already used as such, and there are lots of services provided.
Park and Ride facilities (recognizing that folks still want their cars) are needed at the following
locations: Seward Meridian Parkway/Parks Highway, Trunk Road/Parks Highway, Meadow
Lakes, Knik‐Goose Bay Road, Old Glenn/New Glenn highways.
Connections to para‐transit are necessary; we already have Chickaloon Village Traditional
Council transit and Sunshine transit.
All transit should be coordinated and have a central maintenance department, central
management, and an online component/app for riders.
A surcharge on motor fuels is the most viable solution for paying for these improvements. Four
cents per gallon: 3 cents for maintenance, 1 cent for transit.
At the end of the workshop, participants were asked to complete the “Tough Choices” survey, which
was also made available publicly (see Online Open House – April 2016, Tough Choices survey earlier in
this document).
Email invitations to Workshop #4 were sent to the people who were invited to Workshop #2 (held in July
2014) plus the MSB Planning Commission, the MSB Platting Board, and representatives from each
incorporated city in the MSB.
Workshop#5‐AlternativesAnalysis/ResultsWorkshopA 3‐hour Alternatives Analysis/Results workshop held on July 21, 2016 at Station 61 in Wasilla was a
follow‐up to the Alternatives and Transit workshops held in April 2016. Following a presentation and
question‐and‐answer period, attendees participated in a prioritization and evaluative exercise: how well
did each of the items in the low‐, medium‐, and high‐change scenarios meet LRTP goals, the public
benefits from each solution, and individual preferences for each item. The exercise results were used to
identify LRTP recommendations.
Following the exercise, the group asked final follow‐up questions and was encouraged to flag items
missing from the alternatives. The comments are summarized below:
Add the Palmer‐Wasilla Highway Corridor Study to the project list.
Add bus turn‐out lanes on major roads.
Matanuska‐Susitna Borough 2035 Long Range Transportation PlanPublic Involvement Appendix
16
Policy funding for pedestrian walkway snow clearing is needed.
Extend path along the ARRC to the fairgrounds/State Fair transit center.
Don’t push out the timeframe for adding fixed bus routes.
Consider para‐transit along with fixed routes.
Identify locations for rail stations to support future light rail, and coordinate with the
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA).
Reserve rail stations, transit facilities, and road corridors as part of subdivision plans and note
these on the plat. Change ordinances to show reserved spaces on public maps.
Clarify who will provide the University of Alaska shuttle service.
Recognize the function that major roads play in the network, including Federal Highway System
goals.
o Density notes may conflict with highway goals.
o Verify the definition of stakeholders.
The design standards manual should incorporate a complete streets and implementation plan.
Establish data‐sharing agreements, including with the military.
Define specific road functions—identify corridors specific for transit, and other functions (such
as the Parks, Glenn and Palmer‐Wasilla highways).
Add a goal for regional connections (e.g., congestion solutions for the Glenn Highway).
Add a section on off‐road vehicle/ATV use—such as a use ordinance, ATV plan, or ATV corridor.
Keep in mind that newer populations will have different expectations for travel and transit.
Coordinate with state agencies on national standards and best practices.
Consider how TDM/TSM will be used if the national gas pipeline is constructed (2019‐2025).
Add emergency providers and access under safety.
Consider traffic calming on subdivision roads to prevent residential streets from becoming
corridors.
Offer LRTP classes/information at the transportation fair this fall.
Other comments provided at the workshop included:
Have you considered a goal for enhancing regional connections/transportation?
Need trails along Trunk Road south. There were a lot of pedestrian paths on the maps at public
meetings. Does this capture all of them?
Include design standards in complete streets and street typology.
Need to coordinate with the Mat‐Su Visitor’s Bureau so more tourists can easily get around the
MSB.
University of Alaska UPASS/Transit
MOA should provide and pay for vanpool service.
Must provide para‐transit.
The trail following the railroad track from the Old Palmer Depot needs to go to the Fairgrounds.
Matanuska‐Susitna Borough 2035 Long Range Transportation PlanPublic Involvement Appendix
17
Connect the Wasilla and Palmer Senior Centers to bus routes.
Connect bus routes to libraries, Mat‐Su College, Farmer’s Markets, State Fair, senior centers,
schools, medical facilities, Menard Center, MTA Sports Center, and tourism sites (e.g., Musk Ox
Farm, Reindeer Place, museums)
Need bus stop signs all over the Borough.
Need benches with a “roof” so folks can wait for a bus in inclement weather. All bus stops
should have NO SMOKING signs.
Need much better communication and marketing of how to ride the buses.
Bus drivers should be paid a living wage! They are the face of transit companies to the public.
Mat‐Su Community Transit used to administer a cab voucher for times and places the buses do
not run. A new cab voucher system need to be implemented ASAP. There needs to be a Borough
law about no smoking on all cabs.
The major roads need “bus turnouts.”
The local governing bodies need to allocate funds to keep the sidewalk and bus stops clear of
snow and ice.
A bus pass is needed that is acceptable on all the various transit systems – for simplicity,
efficiency and to encourage folks to not drive their personal cars – avoid congestion on streets.
Need bus connections/commuter service between/among all towns in the Borough.
“High intensity” transit of four bus routes is really low. For sustainable transit, it is critical for
community partnerships and it is important to identify this in the plan.
Involve bus riders in planning bus routes.
Need weekend service.
Need a simplified and easy‐to‐read bus schedule.
Consider discounted fares for select user groups such as seniors, people with disabilities, and
students.
Need newer buses.
OtherOutreachEffortsThe project team developed and implemented a robust outreach campaign to ensure that stakeholders
were aware of the opportunities offered to comment on the alternatives development process.
FactSheetsThe project team produced fact sheets on technical issues for distribution at public meetings,
presentations, and through the website. Topics included:
MSB Population and Roadway Data collection
Alternative Futures
Roadway Congestion
Roadway Funding
Matanuska‐Susitna Borough 2035 Long Range Transportation PlanPublic Involvement Appendix
18
Transportation Decision Making
Transportation Options
SmallGroupPresentationsMSB staff presented information from the LRTP to a variety of small groups, including community
councils, chambers of commerce, civic groups, and professional associations.
Date Meeting/Presentation
June 16, 2014; August 27, 2014; October 16, 2016 Transportation Advisory Board Meeting
June 2014, August 2014 Aviation Advisory Board Meeting
MSB Planning Commission
MSB Assembly
Transportation Advisory Board Meeting
October 22, 2014 MSB Transportation Fair
October 22, 2015 MSB Transportation Fair
November 2014 MSB Planning Commission Meeting
September 22, 2016 MSB Transportation Fair
April – June 2017 Gateway Community Council Butte Community Council Sutton Community Council Knik‐Fairview Community Council Big Lake Community Council Chickaloon Community Council
April 11, 2017 Common Grounds
April 19, 2017 ASCE Mat‐Su
April – June 2017 Palmer Chamber of Commerce Wasilla Chamber of Commerce Big Lake Chamber of Commerce Palmer Kiwanis Houston City Council Palmer City Council Mat‐Su Transit Coalition Palmer Planning Commission Houston Planning Commission Wasilla Planning Commission Mat‐Su Senior Center
April 27, 2017 Walkability Forum
June 6. 2017 Transportation Advisory Board Meeting
Matanuska‐Susitna Borough 2035 Long Range Transportation PlanPublic Involvement Appendix
1
AttachmentA:ToughChoicesSurveyResults
1
MSB 2035 LRTP Outreach Tough Choices Survey Report
1.0 Introduction As part of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (MSB) 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) public involvement process, the Tough Choices Survey was designed for community members and various MSB stakeholders as a platform for involvement in the planning process. The purpose of the survey was to help the MSB make decisions regarding future transportation improvements. The MSB does not have enough funds to implement all the needed improvements, and wanted input from its residents and stakeholders regarding how it should prioritize transportation decisions. A total of 81 responses were collected between April 22 and June 13, 2016. All survey responses were collected through the MSB Online Open House and MSB LRTP Workshop #4, which occurred on April 20, 2016. Individuals had the option to skip questions or provide responses. The survey questions were divided based on the following topics:
• Transit • Bicycle/Pedestrian • Transportation Demand Management (TDM)/Transportation System Management
(TSM) • Land Use • Funding
2
2.0 Results The results of the 15-question survey illustrate a strong desire for increased multi-modal transportation facilities in the MSB. The following sections are divided into subsection topics that correspond to these questions.
2.1 Transit This section provides a summary of the responses regarding how people view transit.
2.1.1 Transit System
When asked about transit, 46% of respondents stated they believed the transit system in the MSB should be designed for higher ridership, while 26% of respondents stated they believed there should be more coverage for services1 (see Figure 1). Figure 1: Survey Question 1
Other) responses (28%) included (in the respondents’ words):
• Should be specifically targeted to seniors only • Design for high ridership near population centers, but be sure to provide coverage in
rural areas along major thoroughfares only. They goal should be to able to serve everyone, although folks in rural areas may need to drive 5-10 miles to a stop along a major road (Parks, Palmer/Wasilla Hwy, KGB, etc.)
• You can do both: more coverage with more efficient smaller vehicles • Both – With more coverage comes more ridership
1 Increasing ridership refers to increasing the people who ride the bus while increasing coverage refers to increasing the areas of the MSB that have transit service.
3
• Start with ridership emphasis to show/demonstrate financial feasibilities and then as more of community see benefit and support increases, expand for coverage
• Shouldn’t have more transit • I think it evolves. Start with ridership emphasis to show/demonstrate financial
feasibilities and then as more of community see benefit and support increases, expand for coverage.
• Higher ridership in core areas/more coverage & other areas • Combination – higher ridership on core fixed routes and more coverage in outlying areas
with paratransit and pulsed services • Diverse – high density – more frequent trips; low density – less frequent trips • Feeder communities to city centers, schools, business districts • Balance between fixed routes and on demand service • More frequency • Frequency
2.1.2 Population served by transit
When asked about what percentage of the population should not be served by transit, 24% of respondents indicated that not serving 50% of the population would be acceptable, followed by 15% (19% of respondents) and 25% (18% of respondents) of the population not being served by transit (see Figure 2). Figure 2: Survey Question 2
4
Other (19%) responses included (in the respondents’ words): • Main travel corridors should be covered first. • I believe the development of a master plan that looks at transportation hubs and
corridors is needed before this question is answered • Strike the question; insufficient information - you should ask what you really want to
know. • Efficiency and cost effective to targeted pick up sites throughout the outer areas. • Road system 0%. Probably OK to miss those off grid • Depends on the population "niche" not be served. While no transit system can serve
100% of all ridership categories...Disabled-Seniors-Non Choice rider should take priority • Zero for transit-dependent groups • Depends on the transit service availability • Depends on where the growth is if it chooses to be in outlying large parcel land then
community should be aware there won’t be transit services • Should develop incrementally to analyze and grow with need • The public could tell you; and the transit coalition could provide an excellent perspective • Difficult to answer. It’s a density issue. 60% within dense areas. • Depends on generation • Whatever percent you can’t serve due to fiscal limitations of funding
2.1.3 Proximity to Transit
Regarding how close to home or work is close enough to use transit, 20% of respondents indicated 0.25-0.5 mile, followed by 1-3 miles (15% of respondents), and 0.5-1 mile (14% of respondents; see Figure 3).
5
Figure 3: Survey Question 3
Other (22%) responses included (in the respondents’ words):
• Needs to be close to home and job not home or job to have steady usage • I'd be willing to drive up to 10 miles to a park & ride or bus/train stop location. However,
where I need to get off and walk, the distance would ideally be 0.25 miles or less. • Again, inappropriately worded question; proximity is relative. • If using a park and ride it can be far away from my home but it will have to drop of near
my work, less than half a mile • Shouldn't have more public transit • Depends on type of transit service--commuter service 5-10 miles. For intra-valley .25-.5
miles • Depends on the speed and directness of transit • TIME is more important than distance!! • Depends on the type of transit service if there are park and rides you get a longer range • 1/4 – 1/3 mile walk, 1-3 mile with bicycle use • Matsu’s 4 mile arterial grid means a linear node system (PW Hwy) city to city center • Depends, is there parking, bike racks, covered/heated area? Bathrooms, lockers (or
storage). If there are, then I would commute from farther away. • Problem is transportation at destination
6
2.1.4 Weekend Service
Nearly half of respondents (49%) stated they believed weekend transit services were somewhat important, followed by neutral (17% of respondents) and very important (16% of respondents; see Figure 4). Figure 4: Survey Question 4
Other (5%) responses included (in respondents’ words):
• Need to identify the needs to make an informed plan. • It's important for non-choice riders but probably limited when building valley transit
capability, and then it evolves to higher levels as time progress and system establishes financial stability/equilibrium
• Important but finance reality says you must start with main parts and expand over time • Not important to me but very important to those who don’t own a vehicle
2.1.5 Time of Transit Service
When comparing peak period services to all day services, almost half (47%) of respondents stated they believed that peak period services were more important to transit users, while 28% of respondents stated they believed that all day service was more important (see Figure 5).
7
Figure 5: Survey Question 5
Other (25%) responses included (in the respondents’ words):
• All day and night--keep the drunks from driving • Focus should be improving roads for regular vehicles • Peak initially and then expand as system evolves and becomes more established • Both – work shifts vary, especially for medical staff • Express service during peak with all day service available. • Peak service on core commuter/express routes and all-day service on local, para-transit
routes with high volumes • Peak period with maybe a Friday or Sat evening to give options for evening/weekend
shopping, dining activities. It should align with businesses (including adjusting for winter/summer)
• Focus on peak, but at least provide limited off peak service • Match capacity and schedule to demand • Needs to be a balance of both depending on the area served and population • Peak for Anchorage commuter, Palmer to Wasilla commuter, and all day for Palmer to
Wasilla and intercity routes used by all by commuters • Combo – more service for peaks during commuter times; all day – less frequent for non
peak time
2.2 Bicycle/Pedestrian This section provides a summary of the responses regarding how people view bicycle/pedestrian improvement.
8
2.2.1 Arterial Roads and Highways
Approximately half (49%) of all respondents stated they believed arterial roads and highways should accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians, while 33% of respondents believed arterial roads and highways should not (see Figure 6). Figure 6: Survey Question 6
Other (19%) responses included (in respondents’ words):
• Again, inappropriate question. Too broad. This won't elicit helpful information. • Maybe arterial should be considered jargon and not in a survey for general public. Major
roadways should have ped/bike paths • Pedestrians 1st • No because they will used and destroyed by illegal motorized traffic • Arterial roads yes....highways such as the Parks through Wasilla-no • Roads with speed limit of less than 35 mph. • Main roadways should accommodate bike/ped • Specific definition of need • Not sure
2.2.2 School Accessibility
The majority (81%) of respondents stated they believed that all schools should be accessible by bicycles or by walking, while 14% of respondents stated they believed schools should not be accessible by bicycles or walking (see Figure 7).
9
Figure 7: Survey Question 7
Other (5%) responses included (in respondents’ words):
• This is not realistic and costs would be enormous. • Specific feasibility for population served
2.2.3 New or Reconstructed Roads
The majority (71%) of respondents stated they believe all new or reconstructed roads in the core areas of the MSB should include bicycle/pedestrian facilities, while 21% stated they believed they should not (see Figure 8). Figure 8: Survey Question 8
10
Other (8%) responses included (in respondents’ words):
• True, but minimally, the roads should at LEAST have a decent shoulder to walk on. • Depends on functional use (OSHP) • Transit slow/pull-out • True, or provide an alternative safer/better route • Should be use-specific definition
2.2.4 Recreation or transportation
When asked if bicycle and pedestrian facilities should be considered as recreation instead of transportation, more than half (55%) of respondents disagreed, while 19% agreed (see Figure 9). Figure 9: Survey Question 9
Other (26%) responses included (in respondents’ words):
• Vehicular pathways/facilities should have top priority. • Both uses should be considered • As the borough population grows, transportation will become a future planning
concern. • This is false--bicycles are the most efficient form of transportation. Wide shoulders are
cheaper AND SAFER than side paths. Consult the AASHTO "Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th Edition." https://bookstore.transportation.org/category_item.aspx?id=DS&gclid=CLb76P2Thc0CFYdlfgodEcgGAQ
11
• Pedestrians 1st • They must be treated as both such that all types of users have access to the places they
want to go. • Hybrid w/ emphasis on transportation • Both • Use-specific • Need to re-evaluate demographics. Understand use now vs 20 years from now. • Depends on area and reason for facility; should be conscious decision on what it is being
built to; both have their place • It is easy to do BOTH • Both are necessary • Both – rec – primary use
2.3 Transportation Demand Management (TDM)/Transportation System Management (TSM)
This section provides a summary of the responses regarding how people view transportation demand management (TDM)/transportation system management (TSM) improvements.
2.3.1 Incentives
A majority (67%) of respondents stated they believed the MSB should provide incentives for using TDM/TSM measures, while 18% of respondents disagreed (see Figure 11). Figure 10: Survey Question 11
Other (15%) responses included (in respondents’ words):
12
• Incentive should be a well designed system that meets needs • You haven't defined 'incentives' - another low value question. • Not sure without more information. • I am unfamiliar with the acronym TDM/TSM • True: but you should define your terms (initialisms) • I don’t think incentives are necessary for a well thought out, and well communicated
plan should be sufficient • Only limited – low cost • Use-specific • I’m unsure • Limited financial incentives – subsidy for infrastructure would be better initially • They should have options for what is out there
2.3.2 Priority
The majority (62%) of respondents stated they believed the MSB should focus on infrastructure and road improvements, while 9% disagreed (see Figure 12). Figure 11: Survey Question 12
Other (29%) responses included (in respondents’ words):
• What definition of 'improvement'? Everything seems to be justified by 'upgrade' regardless of how new.
• Infrastructure also includes bike paths, bus pull outs and stops, multi model transit centers, public transit vehicle replacement funding
13
• My family would like to see predictable, safe space for alternative transportation, as there are many who cannot drive vehicles due to cost or physical impairment.
• They should focus on making existing roads safer such as lighting • Separated pathways • True - but infrastructure should include transit • True MSB should focus on roads, but not at the expense of bike/pedestrian traffic. • True, but with other options including in this new rail plan • Maximizing current investments, utilizing lower cost TDM methods! • Focus should be on a balanced transportation network; build out the collector system so
that transit can offer better coverage • MSB should work on development of clusters – business/residential – identify key
cluster zones appropriately. Development transportation plan around these key areas of development
• Use-specific • I’m unsure • The local grid does need to be built out even if transit, bikes, etc. are more of the focus • Focus on infra improvement for modes besides cars (bus, bike, ped) • Should focus on infrastructure that create the most band for the buck/serves multiple
forms of transportation • Should but must include other modes • Both – some areas need improved service and some need new connectivity with access
2.4 Land Use This section provides a summary of the responses regarding how people see land use changes.
2.4.1 Density near bus routes
The majority (68%) of respondents stated they believed most residential and employment density should be increased near bus routes, while 13% disagreed (see Figure 13). Figure 12: Survey Question 13
14
Other (19%) responses included (in respondents’ words):
• This question is ridiculous but characteristic of borough planning. Transportation comes after settlement.
• Should be encouraged through land use regulations • This is a realistic. • With funding limitations the MSB can not afford expansion. We must focus on Primary
objectives of safety and protection. • Residential and employment density development should be encouraged/incentivized in
Borough...and bus routes planned to respond to density locations/provide connectivity....Density development wouldn't be driven by established bus routes. That's the tail wagging the dog. bus routes.
• Where there is transit programming • Use-specific • Can only be done with zoning • Most commute to Anchorage
2.4.2 Future MSB Growth
With regards to how future growth should occur in the MSB, respondents were fairly split. Having future growth occur in town center was selected by 37% of respondents, while 28% selected focusing on redeveloping existing areas, and 18% indicated the MSB should retain the existing growth pattern (see Figure 14).
15
Figure 13: Survey Question 14
Other (18%) responses included (in respondents’ words):
• All of the above • Focus on the real economy, real funding, real need, and real ability to operate and
maintain into the future. • The borough growth is increasing and what it is today may not be the same in the next
10 years. • Develop areas but leave green belt area and hiking parks within Palmer to Wasilla area. • To include multiple options • TOD focused • Focus on key nodes but also key corridors such as the P/W Highway • Let the market/people decide. It’s not the job of government to influence development
in this way. Your focus in entirely on the small core area. • Population determined • Depends. Different options are more suitable in different densities • More land use options available – allowable for choices • Encourage higher density, but a certain % of the population will always want larger lots
where they have more space and privacy • Pick one and plan for it and enforce thru zoning and permitting
2.5 Funding Respondents were asked to divide $100 among five different types of transportation improvements. Overall, respondents indicated that road widening/new construction and preservation of the existing road system were equally important, with each averaging $30.
16
Transit improvements averaged $17, with bicycle/pedestrian improvements close behind at $16. The remaining funds ($8) were for TDM/TSM improvements (see Figure 15). Figure 14: Survey Question 15
Matanuska‐Susitna Borough 2035 Long Range Transportation PlanPublic Involvement Appendix
1
AttachmentB:CommentSummary
Matanuska Susitna Borough
2035 Long Range Transportation Plan
Public Comment Period Summary
The comment period for the Public Review Draft 2035 Matanuska‐Susitna Borough (MSB) Long Range
Transportation Plan (LTRP) opened on March 20, 2017. The original deadline for comments was May 12,
2017 but this was extended to June 14, 2017. Public comments on the draft LRTP were solicited through
three public meetings, an online open house, and presentations to community councils and other
community groups. In addition, the draft LRTP was available on the project website.
Comments received via written correspondence, telephone, email, online open house or comment map1
include:
Comment The public driving habits have severely declined. My suggestion--DOT, DMV, School District partner to present driving classes--free. This is a serious safety issue since there is no "drivers ed" in schools. And, our population is a melting pot so local norms are not established. Hello: Saw you at the Butte CC. Thank you for coming out. I attempted to review the draft on line. I did not see much on trying to do a commuter train. I really think this important to the growing valley. I realize it is in the state's wheel house, but I 'm sure the borough's input would be important. My name is AJ Hoffman and my family and I are avid users of the Old Glenn paved bike trail. First, thanks so much for providing such a great trail for the public to use. Second, I would like to offer some friendly suggestions on a few safety items I feel could enhance the ability of users to operate on the trail safely as well as provide them information regarding the local sites the user is taking in along the path. 1. A few informational Kiosk. This winter we used fat bikes and road the trail a bunch. The safety issue is moose. Once your on that trail your kind of stuck there, and an aggressive moose in the area could put a wrench in the good days plan. We were walking with our kids in a stroller when a moose ran at us. Luckily a truck saw us running and swerved and started beepin his horn. I thought, that was close. As we walked back we bumped into a guy and told him to be careful. He said the moose was hanging out in the area a lot over the winter. So my suggestion is a moose safety sign. What to do if charged, maybe even a warning sign of moose present in area that users could change to match trail conditions. I know the area to the west if the trail can hold a lot of mothers with fresh caves so it would be good in general to just to give users a heads up as to the habitat they are surrounded by. 2. The kiosk could be used to talk about the mat/kink river. Provide salmon information, talk about it being glacier feed, as well as mentioning the silt and safety when exploring close to the banks of the rivers. I know Eagle Scouts look for projects to do locally and I thought the kiosks would be a good one to suggest. Also maybe a basic map, where you are, how far to here, how far to there. I noticed atvs and side by sides use the side of the trail. This is ok and at least they are following the rules of no motorized vehicles, but it causes a bunch of debris like gravel to constantly be thrown over the path. This makes for dangerous travel on a bike.
1 For comments submitted the online comment map, a location has been added to the comment by the project team when needed.
There are several trail heads that can be accessed near the bike path for people to explore. Lazy mountain, mat peak, jim lake just to name a few. Looking into making an atv path on the other side of the road where there is already a trail in use. Again, providing signage to help guide users on the do's and don'ts of the path/trail use. Pretty much take a dozen and make a semi flat usable trail for atvs. I am happy you guys are reaching out to the public for feed back. The only other addition I have is the serious lack of warning signals and safety walks to allow users on the east side of the road to safely gain access to the trail. I don't think we need anything crazy like a cat walk over the road, but maybe a few more warning lights or designated crossing zones where street access is available to allow for safe passage across the road. Children also use this trail so it would be beneficial for a "safe route to school" type of a program. I would like to iterate once again for the need for public transportation! We spend so much on road improvements and all the safety concerns. It would sure be reduced by having an efficient and robust public transportation system. Instead of the borough spending so much on "Share a Ride, make the infrastructure and develop and real working transit system, starting from feeder routes to the commuter busses. Also it is about time that the people that own the AK RR TELL them that we need to have track time also. Between the borough and AKRR, we have not gotten any support to make a system work. Wait a minute....who owns these entities? Separated pedestrian pathway from Sutton to Palmer has been indicated on Sutton community plan and the MAT-SU Borough LRTP and has been i.d. by the Trails and Recreation committee and the Tab board approved to be added to the STIP. Mile 58 RD. is to dangerous for school buses to go up and needs to be fixed. i have submit to the CTIP numerous times. Safety issue. Please connect the bike trail from the Colony Schools to Trunk Road. Please connect the bike trail from the existing bike trail at Palmer Depot to the existing bike trail along the railroad tracks that ties in to Cope Industrial bike trail. Please construct a new bike trail along Airport Road ROW from the existing bike trail along the Old Glen to the trail and open space near the Palmer Babb Arboretum. I currently live on one of the 2 busiest residential streets, in our area, being Peck, the other is Tait. My children go to Fronteras Spanish Immersion Charter School and their new location in on Seward Meridian Pkwy. That makes 3 high traffic schools on one small street, that dead ends after the new school. I have heard for years, that SMP would be built out to go all of the way through. At first I was excited about the amount of traffic that would stop traveling on Peck. Now I'm concerned about the amount of traffic that the three schools will be creating for the small residential subdivision, that is nearby. Please act quickly on getting this section of road done. Intersection of Bogard and Bogard extension needs to be fixed, stop light? The four way stop creates a steady stream of traffic that does not let cars to onto Bogard. Location: Bogard/Seldon Intersection. lack of DOT right of way easements prevents continuation of bike path/pedestrian walkway to end of Spur Rd. junction with MSB Main St.. Add coloured hiking lanes to direct people off the street and move parking cars to center of road. Consider a temporary fix on Mile 36-38 Glenn Highway to lessen the number of fatality and serious injury accidents until the highway expansion is completed. Some lighting, better striping, a few signs of warning would all help on this dark stretch of road with its many access points in and out that surprise unalert drivers when people suddenly turn into one of these driveways or streets. The road is bad in winters because of the darkness and in summer because of the heavier traffic and people turning into the park and the popular spot between Kepler Bradley Lakes where there is a business that offers canoes for rent. This entire stretch of road desperately needs a center turn lane. Turning left onto PW without a stop light is nearly impossible, and turning left from PW causes numerous delays for drivers behind the turning vehicle. Location: Entire Length of the Palmer Wasilla Highway The layout of Evergreen, from the Glenn to S Bailey St is dangerous and frustrating. The right hand lane should be a through lane all the way to the 4 way stop at Alaska St. There should be a center turn
lane all the way down to prevent congestion. Traffic is always backed up into the Glenn/Evergreen intersection when vehicles are turning left into the driveway by Dairy Queen. The current layout causes frequent dangerous lane changes and congestion through the center of town due to stopped vehicles in the left lane every few yards. Funding the remaining portion of the Trunk Road Extension South project should be one of the top priorities of the MSB. The map needs to show the new Seldon Road Extension to Beverly Lks Road. Edgerton Parks Road needs either 8 foot shoulders or a seperated path for pedestrians and bicyles. With Government Peak Recreation Area becoming a significant destination there is increase vehicle and bike traffic on this very narrow road. Need to complete the road connection between the two Tex-Al road segments to pull some of the local traffic off of the upper portions of Palmer Fishhook and Wasilla Fishhook. Need to complete the road connection between Engstrom Road and Tex-Al Road to provide a number of large subdivisions access to Palmer Fishhook and Wasilla Fishhook. This would reduce pressure on the Engstrom Bogard intersection which is currently congested. MSB has a design for this road connection sitting on the shelf waiting for funding to complete ROW and construction phases. Seldon Road Extension Phase II to Pittman needs to be a top priority for construction funding to move traffic off of Beverly Lakes Road. Use part of existing ROW and extend Norman Ave west to Boyd Rd for faster access to Palmer-Fishhook. All residents down Soapstone and further north towards Sutton would have better access to Hatcher's Pass. see connected comment-PLEASE! As the community grows, the entrance road to the landfill, 49th State Street will exceed its ability to handle the traffic. The imminent build out of a Septage and Leachate facility on the landfill only compounds this issue. A connector from 49th State Street around the west side of the landfill property along the power line easement and then across westerly to Trunk Road would go a long way to ease congestion. This project should be considered in the next 5 years. The road of Lakes Blvd has been deteriorating and in need of some major repairs. Big heaves and shoulder work. Please add bike path here. This would extend the current path at the roundabout to Earl Drive (the road leading to the school). This is a dangerous section for walkers and cyclists. I have witnessed several near misses/accidents. Location: Bogard Road from Trunk Road to Earl Drive access to Finger Lake School. Please include bike path in new road construction project. I believe this is included, but just want to add the comment. Please consider widening the sidewalk pathway here for cyclists and walkers. This is a tricky/dangerous section to navigate as a cyclist. This would be a great connection between the intersection at the Glenn (where the good bike path ends) and the bike path starts again (closer to the airport). Location: East Arctic Avenue from New Glenn to near the Palmer Airport. Please consider adding a bike path here. Would be a great connector between Palmer-Wasilla Highway and Bogard. Location: Along 49th State Street between Palmer Wasilla Highway and Colony School Drive. Please complete the bike path from Colony Middle to Trunk Road. Then continue bike path along Bogard. Adding a bike path along Fishhook to Hatcher Pass would offer opportunities to keep local cars off the road, especially in the busy summer months. This would connect people to the existing bike paths on Snowgoose Pond & Trunk road, both of which connect to Wasilla and Palmer (via Bogard and Palmer Wasilla Hwy). Connecting Hollywood to KGB would provide an alternate East-West route from Wasilla to Big Lake. This would alleviate Traffic on both the Parks highway and KGB, as well as provide a safer 'out' in emergencies. Since the punch through of Bogard and Seldon from Palmer to Meadowlakes, this intersection has become backed up and congested all hours of the day as I live less than 2 miles from it and have to travel through it daily. Location: Bogard/Seldon Intersection. Fix what has been caused!! this intersection is a joke and needs to be redesigned and fixed, as traffic
is backed up for over a mile. Location: Bogard/Seldon Intersection. Adding a bike path from the Glenn Highway to Edgerton Parks Rd would tie the Glenn hwy / Palmer north bike/foot traffic to Hatcher Pass picking up Snowgoose Rd which ties into Bogard Rd. It would also tie into the bike path along Trunk Rd which currently sees a lot of bike/foot traffic. In the 32 years I have lived on the Fishhook Rd I have seen a tremendous increase of vehicle traffic.With vehicle traffic comes an increase in bike and foot traffic. I am amazed no one has been hit! It gets a bit crazy on nice days.... Also there is a need for parking at Palmer-Fishhook and Trunk.. apparently DOT did not think this intersection would be a starting point to use the bike path!? The MSB needs to assume road powers so they can fund projects with an areawide levy. Given the state budget, it is only a matter of time when the MSB will need to assume greater maintenance resonsibility for collector and arterial streets not on the national highway system. We could also control the road features better and begin to create complete streets where desired. Need more arterial streets in this area to create alternative routing to the Parks Highway. There are 4 or 5 roundabouts on Bogard that flow traffic efficiently. Why in the world, did they not put one here? I have seen cars backed up here over a half mile at times. That's crazy! Location: Bogard/Seldon Intersection. 4 lane roadway with a bike path. Sooner the better! Location: Seward Meridian Parkway The signal lights are an improvement, but a well planned roundabout would improve traffic flow. Quit putting off the upgrade to this highway. People are being killed, but still the move to a 4 lane road is years off, it ever. It need to be on the top of the list, and work need to start immediately, not at some future time. Location: Palmer Wasilla Highway. The traffic lights back up traffic and slow the traffic flow. A round about is needed. The railroad should be routed to the south around the city of Wasilla, not through it. Moving it outside the city would greatly improve the area for people that live here. the park on the lake could be enlarged and improved. Families would want to go there and not have to put up with the noise and potential danger of the passing cars. A perfect place for a good round about. the signal light help, but still contribute to traffic back ups. Round abouts keep traffic moving. This road needs to be 4 lane to support the traffic I see today. Location: Palmer Wasilla Highway Please put the right turn lane back on KGB turning onto Clapp. Unfortunately, when they did the Clapp extension, they removed this lane. It is a hazard because people continuing up KGB now veer around those that are turning and go into the oncoming left turn lane. I know this is for the Mat Su Valley, but a large portion of the population works in Anchorage. A Park 'n' Ride is nice, but perhaps a light rail from the Mat Su Valley to Anchorage going back and forth would be an excellent solution to traffic congestion. This might be considered a good place for a new north south route. Extension and improvement of foothills then veer to the west of the lake to connect with Parks hwy. Location: Foothills Drive between KGB and the Parks Highway. Roundabouts should only be used in subdivisions. They are extra hazards in a growing area with lots of tourists who must educate themselves as they approach. Large trucks have difficulty navigating them. People don't stop at stop signs but in rounds they don't stop for vehicles already in the round. Plan your trip to include the stop sign/light. This is the worst roundabout I have experienced Bike paths should be put on every busy road. Add culvert to divert flood water South Add speed bumbs on both side of intersection for safety of merging cars and crossing of boaters/swimmers to Y lake. Location: Talkeetna area Plant grass to avoid cars driving off the road. Very dangerous road with all the falling rocks on the highway. Spring time is extremely dangerous Location: Glenn Highway Long Lake. Please add a right turn lane back in at Clapp Road, by eliminating it when they added the light and new intersection it has created a bottle neck for traffic when someone is turning off KGB to Clapp Road. A separated pathway from Palmer to Sutton along the Glenn Hwy is needed. There has been a noticeable increase in bicycle traffic along the Glenn. Areas with narrow shoulders do not provide adequate space for sharing of transportation types.
The intersection of Engstrom and Bogart is very dangerous. Several accidents have occurred due to poor viability of the elevated traffic coming thru the area. There needs to be a redesign of this intersection. Colour bike lane at lookout, do avoid parked cars on biking lane. Add bike lane along Comsat rd Add turn lane from North into Cubby's Location: Parks Highway and Talkeetna Spur Road Intersection Bogard Road is one of the few major traffic roads that does not have a bike/walking path. There is one on the extension into Palmer. They even have one in the Kenny Lake area near Chitina, Willow, Huston, and Sutton all have bike paths and less than 1/10 the population around Bogard Road. This should have been done years ago and needs to be fixed NOW for the safety of our families that walk and bike for their health or to/from school. Walking or biking on this road is NOT healthy. This was a HIGH priority project 10 years ago and has dropped off of the planning. This extension needs to be completed along with making all of Seward Merdian a 4-lane road for safety. There is too much traffic going around Bogard to Tate (through a small subdivision) to Seldon. This making Tate and the intersections at Seldon and Bodgard very hazardous. This has been a bad intersection for years and since the Bogard Road extension into Palmer, it has become a hazardous joke. This needs to be fixed ASAP. Location: Bogard Seldon Intersection. The speed limit prior to the TKA Public Library needs to be reduced in both directions of the TKA Spur Rd and it should also be a double line "no passing" zone. Thak you The area is the Spur Rd. near the new Talkeetna Public Library. There needs to be a decrease in speed from 55 to 45 mph and there needs to be a no passing zone there because of people slowing down and turning into the library. Do not create any new roads in the Upper Valley unless there is a way to have adequate funds to maintain the roads. It is easier to get project development monies than it is to get operation and maintenance funds. People who live along Comsat Rd. do not want a bike lane created. Cost too much money and it interferes with quality of life of residents of private property in the area. The intersection of Trunk and Palmer Fishhook needs a parking area. Accessing the bike trail from this point is difficult, as there is nowhere to safely park. We need Valley Mover to stop in the mornings in Palmer. Just one bus would be a good start. Driving to the P&R defeats the impetus for taking the bus. Please support Valley Mover to expand a route to Palmer. We need a bike path along Palmer Fishhook to accommodate the bicycle traffic. There still needs to be a motorized path. If the motorized path is removed, the motorized traffic uses the area next to a bike path and ends up spraying gravel on the paved bike trail. We need a designated off-road, motorized vehicle lane along the stretch from the Matanuska Bridge to the Butte. Motorized traffic is using the berm next to the paved bike path and spraying gravel all over the path, which make biking difficult and dangerous. We need commuter rail to Anchorage. Most of us do not care if the train is slow (not high-speed). Anything is faster than sitting on the Glenn for hours waiting for an accident to clear. As for dealing with commuters once we get to Anchorage, we will figure that out. The intersection of France Road and Palmer-Wasilla Highway is extremely dangerous. I have personally seen four accidents at this intersection since I have lived in the area for the past eight years and I know there have been others. There are school buses, high school students, heavy construction equipment and homeowners that all use the narrow and curvy France Road to access Palmer-Wasilla Highway. This intersection has many of the ingredients for a future fatality. Currently there is only one egress route out of this area. If there was a fire or other emergency in the area it is possible that people could be trapped in the area. There is a project on the LRTP to extend Hemmer Road south and connect this with a road leading from Pathways High School. This would allow much of the traffic to be routed to an intersection with traffic signals. This project needs to remain in the plan and funds should be approved to begin this project. Do Not support a creation of bike land on Comsat Rd. which is off the Talkeetna spur road. Hundreds of trees will be cut down which will change the whole area. As a resident of Comsat and property owner, I do not want to see this happen. The borough usually does not consider environmental impacts. The
bike land will cause a commercialization of an area that is RESIDENTIAL. There are also socioeconomic impacts crazy as that sounds. Think things out. This light backs up during peak travel times. at a minimum, adjust the light sequencing to account for this or come up with a method to eliminate this light and all others between here and the center of Wasilla. An alternative would be a highway route that bypasses the center of Wasilla. W. Donna Marie needs to be paved or S. Viewport Way needs it's own paved extension to KGB. S. Viewport Way and W. Overview Dr are already paved and it's ridiculous to have to drive off pavement onto a wash-boarded dirt road and then back onto pavement. Need a right turn lane here. Also, consider raising the speed limit on Clapp. Why isn't it 45mph? Crossing the 3 bears traffic turning to/from KGB as a pedestrian or bike on the paved path is a death trap...or a long wait. I would think extending this road and adding a controlled intersection at E Seldon Rd would take some of the pressure off the Seldon/Bogard intersection, as well as, Tait Dr. Location: Seward Meridian Parkway Extension I am often backed up as far as N Chandelle Ct when heading west in the evening waiting to get through the four-way stop at Seldon and Bogard. I personally take Cottonwood Loop to E Alder to get around the bottleneck. I am sure it is not your intent to channel traffic this way, but it is a common occurrence. Please fix this substandard section of road. It does not hold up under the traffic. There are no shoulders and the edges are crumbling in places so the road is slightly narrowed and dangerous for bike and foot traffic. This should be a priority ahead of channel more traffic onto this section. This road in deteriorating under the increased traffic. Please complete the Seldon Extension Project. The Nelson Road Bridge over Wasilla Creek has multiple structural deficiencies, does not meet the 100 yr. flood standards and should be replaced. When the Trunk Road roundabout is blocked or shut down by the Troopers there is no access to the Hospital. There needs to be a secondary access road established to the Parks or Glenn Highway. Palmer Fishhook needs either an 8-foot shoulder or separated pathway for pedestrians and bikers. There has been a large increase in ped and bike traffic along this highway as the residential development continues and people seek to recreate at the Government Peak Rec Area and Hatcher Pass. The improvement would benefit residents and tourism as well. Felton Street needs to be extended from the Palmer HS Pool down to Palmer-Wasilla Highway to continue building out the local road network. This connection will help pull a substantial amount of traffic off of the Glenn Highway releaving congestion through Palmer . Arctic Blvd needs a right turn lane at the Glenn Highway intersection to reduce traffic congestion that now backs up into the Alaska Way intersection. Wasilla Fishhook from Seldon to Palmer Fishhook needs 8-foot shoulders. At a minimum, ADOT&PF should add additional shoulder fill to eliminate the sharp drop offs from the paved edge to ditch. You can see from tire tracks that drivers are going off the edge being pulled into the ditch. This intersection is extremely congested and definitely needs to be re-designed. I live in the Cottonwood Loop subdivision and avoid having to go through here. A temporary solution could be to remove the stop signs for traffic travelling east and west, but keep the blinking yellow 'caution' light. Traffic flow from the south is much lower and tends to turn right. Location: Bogard Seldon Intersection. This intersection is very dangerous during peak travel times and is a blind-spot for Bogard traffic in both directions. Location: Bogard Engstrom Intersection This is not a current map. The new Bogard extension is not showing. A roundabout at Oscar/New Bogard/Palmer-Moose would be very helpful for traffic going in and out of this subdivision. Traffic traveling on new Bogard moves way too fast! Thank you Palmer PD for helping slow it down. This road is below standard and the lack of shoulders is a hazard to the kids and adults who walk or bike on this stretch of road. The hill at snow goose should be cut down. The visibility at the intersection towards the swamp is appalling. Location: Palmer Fishhook Road My concern is that once again the Borough has put out a temporary fix that it will leave in place on Seldon Road. Safety First. Please consider North and South bound turn lanes for Cubby's Marketplace, Tesoro and Fire Department. *Widen Parks Highway thru this area
*Median Two Way Left Turn lane possible *Reduce Speed 45 mph With the Senior Center, Church, JR/SR High School, Grocery Store, Talkeetna Spur Road to Talkeetna, Hardware Store, Fire Station, Fuel Station/Truck Stop, Sandwich Shop, future bike/ped path and other businesses present and future in the area, local residents and visitors alike would be safer when traveling to and from these destinations. The Glenn Hwy from the Bonnie Lake Road to the Puritan Creek pullout is extremely dangerous and should have been improved and realigned 10 years ago. Sharp curves, lack of shoulders, numerous rock falls, winter glaciering, poor visibility for moose crossing all add up to one of the most dangerous stretches of roadway in the State especially for the amount of traffic this roadway currently handles. I would love to see a bike path extended at least to SMP, to hopefully meet one extended to that intersection on SMP. With the new buildings going up here, Seward-Meridian Parkway will be more and more congested. For those of us who live in the neighborhood across Seward-Meridian, this poses a daily danger at high traffic times of the day. In response to residents opposed to a Com Sat bike path - I agree that tree loss would be severe and bike use not high enough to warrant the scale of a bike path on the entire length of Com Sat Rd.. A compromise might be a bike path on first mile of Com Sat which would provide access to Tka Lakes park, Alascom housing neighborhood, and Chrisitansen Lake Rd. Bike path should be on Christiansen Lake Rd to access the Christiansen Lake park and access to the Old Lake Rd.trail systems etc SERIOUS Concern for first responders etc-Borough maps show this road as open ingress/egress to the Gateway neighborhood south of college property. Mat-Su College has continued to block this road with large boulders to prohibit its use. Duchess and S Georgeson are the only roads to enter/exit this neighborhood-one MUST use the roundabout by the hospital regardless of direction. 2 years ago AST closed off roundabout for an investigation. Trooper said that I had to go up to PWH and come back down. I explained that I still needed to use the roundabout to get to my neighborhood. He said no because of this map, and many others apparently, show this road as open. Not true-the roundabout is the ONLY ingress/egress to the hospital. Solution-have the college remove boulders and open their gates to thru traffic, or put in a left turn lane on SB Trunk at Duchess. (Some cars are already crossing median on Trunk where there is no crossing-very dangerous!). Road was not built in accordance to plan! The Smith Road - Maud road area is dangerous for individuals & families when going on walks & runs. The road is not wide enough for traffic and there is no pedestrian path. The borough should consider widening the road or at a least adding paved pedestrian paths. Upgrade and paving of Burma Road, from Ayshire Blvd. to S. Big Lake Road, should be added to the mid-range project list. When the Knik Arm Crossing is completed, this will become a major transportation corridor from Anchorage to points north of Big Lake. Please consider improved crossings for bikes/peds along the Old Glenn Hwy at Mat River Park, Valley Way, Clark Wolverine, Virginia, Smith Road, Maud Road Greenstreet access to Bogard is just as dangerous as Engstrom; both roads coming onto Bogard have poor visibility when trying to turn Left onto Bogard. Caribou is a main collector for lots of houses; in the morning and evening during peak traffic there are at lease 5-6 cars in line waiting to make a turn onto Bogard Rd. at a time. It gets dangerous when people start racing out and cut others off to make the turn; as well as there is not a turn lane to come off of Bogard onto Caribou - in the evening there are cars maneuvering and using the shoulders to go around the car waiting to turn- The turn in and out of Matanuska Lakes is dangerous and needs a turn going both directions. Needs a turn lane for traffic headed south on the Glenn and turning west onto the new Bogard. Need larger parking area for Butte trailhead and/or roadside parking. This 4 way stop gets traffic backed up in the evenings all the way to N Lazy Eight Ct and on some occasions all the way to N Cottonwood Loop/Departure Ct. Please Put in a Roundabout! Location: Bogard Seldon Intersection The light was a great fast fix for the congestion here in the mornings before school starts and when
school ends to keep traffic somewhat flowing. I feel a round about would be in the best interest to keep the traffic flow moving - and Please look at opening up Seward Merdian - once that is open it will elevate some of the congestion/hazard on Tait The access to/from the Baseball Fields is very dangerous. There is no turn lane to get off of KGB and there is no light/sign forcing to turn Right; The ball fields are busy every day of the week - Monday - Friday after work hours (rush time) till 9PM Foothills is a main collector street for many homes; new subdivisions being added and congestion happens at the Foothills/KGB intersection. Also the Mail boxes right at the end of the road here - causes a bit of congestion/safety when you have multiple cars lined up stopping to get their mail. There are no turn lanes, no lights, etc. Seldon Road - Beverly Lake Road to Pittman Road needs to be completed. Currently significant amounts of traffic are being routed through a subdivision. There needs to be a bypass around Wasilla. If the visitors center is built here, there will be a lot of large, slow vehicle traffic turning in and out of the site. Long and large turn lanes will be needed in each direction and possibly a light during summer months. Location: Between Mile 36 and 37 of the Glenn Highway. Very dangerous intersection with blind spots and too much traffic for current infrastructure. Location: Bogard/Engstrom Intersection. Need two lanes that go north thru the intersection and a new turn only lane to head east on Arctic. Needs three lanes at intersection. One to turn north on Glenn, one to go straight onto the new Bogard, and to turn south onto the Glenn. This intersection needs a traffic signal and crosswalks. Arctic is becoming more difficult to cross, particularly during school and business "rush hours". Also with the nearby skateboard park and youth center (the Yak) there are many kids running around this area and across traffic, particularly during after school hours. Glenn needs a turn lane, both north and south for Marsh Road. Glenn needs a turn lane, both north and south for this subdivision road. I regularly see near misses at this intersection. The offset of the two intersections entering the Glenn really adds to the confusion of traffic flow. This section of the Glenn Hwy is horrific. I travel this road for work on a regular basis and feel that I put my life in jeopardy with each trip. Steep cliffs, no shoulder, lack of or poor guard rails, falling rocks and debris on roadway, curves, single lane, lack of pullovers and heavy semi truck use. Then summer brings large amounts of RV's not familiar with the road conditions, such as rocks in the road way, tired and distracted and surely scared due to conditions. Please fix this major traffic corridor before someone get hurt. Location: Various locations on the Glenn Highway east of Sutton. This section of road is unsafe for our children. There are four schools in this small area; Larson, Teeland, Mat-Su Career Tech, Fronteris with no bike trails on Seldon, not a school cross walk to be found or crossing guard, school zones without flashing lights or reduced speed limits. Kids and families in the area walk and ride bikes on the roadway shoulder due to NO BIKE TRAILS. Its crazy when our kids can't cross the street safely due to the large amount of increased traffic. Please add a bike trail along Seldon and crosswalks and school zones at all school road entrances now! Seldon grid lock!! Add a round about or 4 way light to keep up with increased traffic. Bike trails, cross walks, safe passage for ATV's and children frequenting the store and Millers is seriously needed. Location: Bogard/Seldon Intersection. AK DOT erosion study indicated parts of S Old Glenn and S Knik River Rd are at risk due to erosion. MSB needs to obtain more ROW along the narrow stretches for emergency repair and travel. There's a lot of traffic that flows from previous roundabouts. This steady flow causes massive backups There is a lot of road noise effecting the Bald Eagles in the subdivision off of Walhalla Street, above this section of the Old Glenn Highway, right in front of my house. A berm or fence along this roadway would stop the noise from disturbing the Bald Eagles. I live off Walhalla Street and I can tell you I have personally witnessed the stress these Bald Eagles are suffering. The look on their majestic faces and clenched beaks tells me they're suffering. I also believe they're developing Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) due to the stress of high automotive noise levels. How do I know? Because I've seen a few of them clench up in mid flight and poop like dinosaurs. I'm no doctor but that screams IBS to me and no symbol of American hope and freedom should suffer that fate. Let's come up with a solution please,
these Bald Eagles deserve to live peacefully, because this is America. Add bike path between roundabout and Colony Middle School. This is a very dangerous intersection(s). This should be addressed immediately. Sight distance is a problem. The offset intersection is problematic. Walkers and cyclists cross here. Please act before a deadly accident occurs. Location: Bogard/Engstrom/Green Fores Street Intersection. Adding a bike path to Bogard Road between the Trunk Rd roundabout and the Seldon intersection is a project that should be on the short term list. This is a high density population area and having a bike path for residents is long overdue. Adding a bike path makes sense for safety, health and quality of life for the Valley community. Great location for a mini roundabout. A roundabout would be very helpful in this spot to keep traffic flowing and prevent the stop and go lines of cars that build up here during busy parts of the day. Dangerous intersection. Align Green Forest with Engstrom. Keep with the roundabout concept along Bogard - No signalized intersections or flashing lights as a "quick fix". This first traffic signal is a disaster during peak times. Please continue with a Wasilla bypass. This first traffic signal is a disaster during peak times. Please continue with a Wasilla bypass. Build the bridge. Use one signal and line up Midtown and Golden Hills. Bight the bullet and buy the needed ROW while also using the frontage road that is there. Do not allow driveway access along the arterial sections of Bogard. We do not need another P-W. Stop allowing subdivisions like this without the developer doing a traffic impact analysis and force them to take responsibility for the traffic they create. Zoning in the core area is needed! This is the silliest intersection in the Valley. What was DOT thinking when they did this? Align Midtown Dr and Golden Hills and use one signal. Take advantage of the frontage road you already have. You have to buy some ROW. So what? Do it right. The borough needs zoning regulations. This section of the Glenn is terrible. I didn't see it on any of the plans for improvement. Hopefully it's there... A right turn lane is needed on KGB for Clapp St turns. South bound drivers are dangerously swerving around slowing, turning autos and into oncoming traffic. This is a blind, narrow, and dangerous corner. Please consider restricting the vegetation to allow for better visibility. It also needs widening. Residents in this area fear for our lives, as well as those of our children and pets as we get out to walk and bicycle. Since people notoriously travel 5 to 10 miles over a posted speed limit, please keep the 35 MPR speed limit and continue to monitor and ticket. Kudos to Wasilla Police Department for their efforts in this area. This intersection continues to get worse, as more and more new houses are constructed. The free-flow of traffic on Bogard leaves no gaps, making a left turn very difficult during prime commuting hours. It is an interesting way to start off your day with an adrenaline rush as you try to beat the west bound traffic coming over the hill which is just enough to obscure traffic and merge into the east bound lane. I know there are problems with land acquisition, but we have to figure something out to relieve the stress on this intersection. It is only a matter of time before a horrid accident occurs here. Location: Bogard Engstrom Intersection. This road would be greatly improved by a sidewalk separated from the road by a median for added safety. The current road is narrow, with no shoulder other than an ATV trail. Vehicles traveling along Foothills have low visibility due to the rolling terrain and often travel at excessive speeds, putting pedestrians and cyclists at high risk. A sidewalk would allow residents to safely walk to their mailboxes, nearby a drive-thru restaurant and stores, as well as safer access to the walk/bike path along KGB. In doing so, it would help to reduce automobile traffic while helping to make Wasilla a more walkable community. Please complete this project to connect Seward Meridian through to these schools. There is too much traffic coming into these schools from the single intersection. Please change this intersection to allow a better flow of traffic off of Engstrom on to Bogard. A left turn off of Engstrom is dangerous, and it also gets very backed up encouraging dangerous behavior. This will only get worse as many new houses are being built near Wolf Lake. Additionally another outlet of traffic, either to Trunk Road or Wasilla Fishhook should be built to provide access to these
neighborhoods. Thanks. A connection from this road to Wasilla Fishhook would relieve a lot of congestion on Engstrom. There needs to be another access out of these subdivisions aside from Engstrom and Pamela (which isn't central enough to be used as often). Engstrom's road conditions are suffering from the amount of traffic all of the new-builds are creating. And the traffic is terrible for pedestrians and bikers. A bike path would solve the pedestrian safety problem, I suppose. This intersection should be top priority. There are times I've waited over 10 min. just to be able to make a left turn. Location: Bogard Engstrom Intersection. Please put in a round-a-bout. The backup is driving me crazy. Location: Seldon - Bogard Intersection. Lake Street needs to be paved for dust control!!! The extensive traffic created by Carter Park and the Lake Lucille Boat Launch causes extensive dust, which is difficult for the City to adequately control within this primarily residential area. There are health concerns for the residents and users of these facilities. I would like to iterate once again for the need for public transportation! We spend so much on road improvements and all the safety concerns. It would sure be reduced by having an efficient and robust public transportation system. Instead of the borough spending so much on "Share a Ride, make the infrastructure and develop and real working transit system, starting from feeder routes to the commuter busses. Also it is about time that the people that own the AK RR TELL them that we need to have track time also. Between the borough and AKRR, we have not gotten any support to make a system work. Wait a minute....who owns these entities? FCP Goal 3) states: "Site future schools at least 1/4 mile away from major roads, in order to avoid creation of school speed zones and to allow children to walk to school" Some schools (ie: Shaw elementary) were specifically planned that no children should walk to school and all children must ride a bus. LRTP page 47, Figure 11, shows how the existing roadway system can perform in 2035. Figure 11, shows Tex-Al Drive as connecting Wasilla Fishhook Road to Palmer Fishhook Road, but Tex Al does not connect the two. The LRTP should be revised to show the gap, and revise the LOS grid as necessary. The LRTP notes the MSB Comprehensive Plan Page 10, should include a section that acknowledges the FCP and any other Assembly approved community comprehensive plans, as these plans maybe different than the over all MSB plan. FHCC request the FCP Transportation Goal 2) Strategy to Extend New Hope Street be included in the LRTP Roadway Recommendations, as this connection is level and more easily built than the Tex Al Drive connection. LRTP page 33 and 34 shows the existing separated paths. FCP on Page 28, Goal 1) bullitt points 3 and 5, ask for additional road side trails. Please include proposed separated road side trails/bike paths in the LRTP, especially along Wasilla-Fishhook and Palmer-Fishhook Roads. We understand that a separated path along Wasilla Fishhook will be difficult to do bejimcause of easement issues but the FFCC would like it stated in the LRTP plan. Hello. My name is jim Kichak and I have lived and worked in the Palmer area for the past thirty-one years. About two years ago I started thinking about what improvements might be made to area- wide mass transit. I thought of Alaska Railroad service trucks that have special train –type wheels that allow these trucks to operate on roads as other vehicles do, but then these vehicles (trucks) also have a separate set of train wheels that can be lowered which allows these vehicles to also ride on train tracks. Perhaps you have also seen these vehicles. I then did some checking via the internet to discover that vehicles that are basically buses with this
same ability (called dual-mode vehicles) were experimented with in Hokkaido, Japan for several years. You can read about this (experiment?) on line. This experiment ended in 2008 for unspecified reasons. My vision for improve mass-transit capabilities in the Mat-Su would include a fleet of such dual-purpose vehicles. These vehicles would basically be buses that could travel specified routes throughout the Valley traveling on borough roads as other vehicles do. But at specified locations these dual-purpose vehicles would then engage the train rails to ferry passengers via existing rails to various off-ramps throughout the existing rail system in Anchorage. These vehicles could then drop-off their passengers along many specific bus routes throughout Anchorage. This would be a morning service that would operate in reverse in the afternoons—picking-up many of these same passengers and retuning them to the Valley in the afternoon (or early evening). This type of mass-transit would be much less costly than a separate commuter rail service, not to mention the cost reduction of constant resurfacing of the Glenn Highway from studded tire damage. Whatever problems ended the Hokkaido Dual-Purpose project may not plague efforts in Alaska.. Improved technology and all-wheel drive dual-purpose vehicles may enable such vehicles (maybe even zero emission electric powered vehicles) to be a success in our particular environment. I’m fairly confident that someone such as Elon Musk (Tesla Motors, Space-X) or similar engineering expertise could solve whatever technical problems may exist with such a proposition. Thank you for the opportunity to share my vision with you. 1. P.1, Legal Requirements, last sentence. "This LRTP must also be consistent with the transportation sections of adopted Community Comprehensive Plans. This is a very weak statement. Was this done? Did someone actually read the transportation sections of all adopted community (and city) comprehensive plans and ensure consistency with the draft LRTP 2035? Compare the draft 2035 statement with the section 1.4 in the 2007 LRTP, which goes into much greater detail on the relationship between the LRTP and the MSB and city/community comprehensive plans including an assurance that states, " The transportation element of the community plans have been considered and incorporated in the development of this Borough‐wide transportation plan." Someone must ensure this has occurred before the final draft goes to the Assembly for approval. The argument that there has to be a cut‐off time for community plans to be considered in this 2035 LRTP is largely invalid, as we're still incorporating comments to the first public draft. The cut‐off time for consideration of city/community comprehensive plans should be just prior to the final draft going to the MSB Assembly. This is a valid concern, because the question of whether the recently adopted City of Houston's Comprehensive Plan, with an extensive transportation element, has been considered has been asked twice without any firm assurance that it was considered. 2. P. 37, Organizing Development to Improve Travel. The statement is made that "Throughout the LRTP update process, many people expressed an interest in having more, higher density mixed use areas in MSB." This statement needs to be quantified with justifying documentation. How many people is many people? How was this desire for higher density development expressed? Is this statement justified with any degree of statistical reliability? I doubt the statement's validity amongst all current MSB residents. 3. P. 41, RSAs. Check the AS 29.25.210 (b) (1) cite for how MSB may acquire area‐wide road powers. I think this may be incorrect.
4. P. 35, Other Modes of Transportation. The LRTP is supposed to address all modes of transportation, not just auto/truck, transit and non‐motorized alternative means. Air, Rail and Marine/Waterborne transportation are only mentioned briefly in passing and are afforded only a short paragraph or three each, all lumped together on one page (P.35) in the main body of LRTP 2035. There is a lot of good and important information on these modes of transportation hidden in Appendix A. Brevity can be a good thing, but the best interests of potential LRTP 2035 readers/users would be better met if the Air, Rail and Marine/Waterborne information in Appendix A is brought forward and used to expand these sections in the main body of the plan. Most readers/users are likely to not consume this information otherwise. Pg. 28 – Summaries of major ideas – trails…to all inclusive Pg. 62 – A regional trail map “active users” kind of unclear for specific users Pg. 36 – Parking issues – Parking at the edge of the road. I found to be a bigger problem is you actually have pull out – too much snow. Pg. 42 – RSAs – Arterials service the whole boroughs and the RSAs service certain areas. Make it sound like everything is going smoothly – when there are problems. More rural areas don’t have the money and the ones in the core area do have the money. Wrong site on page 41 Toad Service Areas, paragraph 1, last line AS 29.25.210(b)(1) Pg. 1 last sentence – very weak than the 2007 plan (the statement in 2007 was a definitive statement) would like a definitive statement like that in this plan. The LRTP needs to meet with the Comprehensive Plans. Pg. 11 – Strategy: Create Transit Supportive Development – Line 2: “The MSB should pursue transit-supportive land uses within a quarter (1/4)-mile radius o either side of the identified mainline…” How would you do that and what do you mean by that? Pg. 14 Strategy: Expand Vanpools Program – What needs to be done to change why they cannot start and end within the MSB? Would like more information Pg. 15 Strategy: Develop Park and Ride Facilities – Are we using density information in conjunction with suggested information or are these sites from CC suggestions? Do we encourage or do we need to have legislation? Pg. 16 Bike to work and school day Initiatives – not everyone can do this and it is not safe with some of the distances. Is there legislation that requires that when a road is put in a bike trail is also? Looks as though the borough is building them when they can; it needs to be done in subdivision law. How do we incorporate the ability to add crosswalks and road use for school/new school construction? Is there funding for safe routes to school? See page 55 – Table 3. Recurring Programs.
1. Assure that the 2017 transportation element of the 2017 City’s Comprehensive Plan has been considered and incorporated in the 2035 LRTP, suggest using language as adopted in the 2007 LRTP section 1.4; and
2. Continue to support MSB and south-central Alaska economic development by continuing to support the completion of the Port MacKenzie rail extension; and
3. After funding is secured to complete the Port MacKenzie rail extension, in cooperation with AK DOT&PF, conduct an engineering reconnaissance study to identify the most suitable transportation corridor and then construct a Port to Parks freight highway, built to federal highway standards; and
4. Consider alternate crossings over the Little Susitna River in addition the single Little Susitna
Parks Highway Bridge. Multiple crossings of the Little Susitna River would provide alternative routs to enhance public safety and promote connectivity, particularly if the sole crossing is blocked due to natural or man-made causes; and
5. Revisit the LRTP periodically to review the Knik Arm Crossing Project. The City continues to support this project. The Knik Arm Bridge will have significant future impacts on traffic volumes experiences by the City and MSB. Remove the assumption that the Knik Arm Crossing will not be built by 2035. (MSB 2035 LRTP, Chapter 6, Roadway Recommendations).
Matanuska‐Susitna Borough 2035 Long Range Transportation PlanPublic Involvement Appendix
2
AttachmentC:PublicInvolvementPlan
MataLong Comm Prepared MatanuskPlanning 350 E. DaPalmer, A Prepared HDR 742 S. AlaPalmer, A
Decembe
anuska-g Range
munity Pa
for: ka-Susitna BoDepartment ahlia Avenue AK 99645
by:
aska St. AK 99645
er 2015
-Susitne Trans
articipatio
orough
na Borosportat
on Plan
ough tion Pla
– Update
an
e
This page inntentionally leeft blank
TABLEOverview
Communi
Communi
Commu
Publ
Web
Onlin
Com
Road
Addi
Implem
Alternativ
Conclusio
Figures
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Table 1: M
Table 2: M
Table 3: M
OF CONT ....................
ity Participati
ity Participati
unity Particip
ic Meetings ..
bsite ..............
ne Open Hou
munity Partic
d Service Area
tional Comm
mentation Sch
ve Land Use S
on ..................
sandTab
MSB 2014 LR
MSB 2014 LR
MSB 2014 LRT
MSB 2014 LRT
MSB 2014 LRT
ADOT&PF
CPP
LRTP
MSB
RSA
TAB
TAC
TENTS.....................
on Goals ......
on Plan ........
ation Tools ...
.....................
.....................
ses ...............
cipation Summ
a, Business an
unity Particip
hedule ...........
Scenarios Ana
.....................
bles
RTP Study Are
RTP Traffic Mo
TP Update Co
TP Update Te
TP Update Im
Alaska
Comm
Long R
Matan
Road
Trans
Techn
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
mary .............
nd Communit
pation Activiti
.....................
alysis .............
.....................
ea ..................
odeling Area
ommunity Par
echnical Advis
mplementatio
Ac
a Department
munity Partici
Range Transp
nuska‐Susitna
Service Area
portation Adv
nical Advisory
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
ty Council Wo
ies .................
......................
......................
......................
......................
.....................
rticipation Sta
sory Committ
n ...................
ronyms List
t of Transpor
pation Plan
portation Plan
a Borough
visory Board
y Committee
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
orkshops .......
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
aff ................
tee ................
.....................
rtation & Pub
n
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
. Error! Book
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
lic Facilities
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
kmark not def
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
....... 1
....... 3
....... 3
....... 4
....... 4
....... 5
....... 5
....... 6
....... 6
....... 6
....... 7
fined.
....... 8
....... 1
....... 2
....... 7
....... 7
....... 7
This page inntentionally leeft blank
OVERVThe inten
Long Ran
MSB, in
Transport
transport
mobility,
commerc
includes t
modes of
through 2
to 2035.
VIEWnt of the Ma
nge Transpor
partnership
tation & Pub
ation improv
reduce con
e in and aro
the entire M
travel. The la
2025. This LRT
atanuska‐Susit
tation Plan (
p with the
blic Facilities
vements that
gestion, imp
ound the MS
SB (see Figu
ast LRTP for t
TP Update w
tna Borough
(LRTP) Updat
Alaska Dep
s (ADOT&PF)
will increase
prove safety,
B. The LRTP
re 1) and wi
the MSB was
will guide futu
Figure 1: M
1
(MSB) 2035
te is for the
partment of
, to identify
e access and
, and foster
P Study Area
ll address all
completed in
ure transporta
MSB LRTP Study
5
e
f
y
d
r
a
l
n 2007 and m
ation improv
y Area
The purp
Update
address
modes of
issues, a
LRTP gu
transport
which id
solutions
required
made project
vements over
pose of the M
is to set p
system‐level
f transportatio
and prioritize
uides area a
tation plann
dentify and
s and iden
to implement
recommenda
the next 20
MSB 2035 LR
policy directio
needs for
on, communica
solutions. T
and commun
ning processe
prioritize loc
ntify resourc
those solution
ations
years
TP
on,
all
ate
The
ity
es,
cal
ces
s.
The MSB
developm
of this g
participat
these issu
Bay Road,
will conce
The MSB
businesse
Alaska Ra
and othe
provides g
when com
and stak
B continues
ments in the c
growth is an
tion is a criti
ues. Most of t
, and in the B
entrate on the
B LRTP stake
es, Road Serv
ilroad, the tr
r concerned
guidance for
mmunity invo
eholders wil
to be the f
community ar
n increase i
cal element
this growth a
Big Lake/Mea
e areas identi
F
eholders inc
ice Areas, the
ansportation
individuals.
outreach act
lvement tool
ll be involve
fastest‐growi
re the primar
n roadway
in planning t
nd developm
adow Lakes a
ified in Figure
Figure 2: MSB L
clude MSB r
e aviation co
industry, Na
The MSB 20
tivities with t
s will be used
ed in the p
2
ng area in
ry drivers of t
traffic, cong
the necessar
ment is occurr
reas. As a res
e 2.
LRTP Traffic Mod
residents, M
mmunity, loc
tive Corporat
035 LRTP Upd
hese various
d. Through co
planning pro
Alaska. New
the continued
gestion, and
ry transportat
ring in the MS
sult, for traffi
deling Area
MSB officials,
cal governme
tions, Village
date’s Comm
stakeholder
ommunity out
ocess and w
w residential
d population
safety con
tion improve
SB Core Area
ic modeling p
, local neigh
ents and boar
Councils, Na
munity Partici
groups and i
treach activit
will be inform
and comm
growth. The
flicts. Comm
ements to ad
, along Knik G
purposes, the
hborhood gr
rds, ADOT&P
tive organiza
ipation Plan
identifies how
ties, MSB resi
med of pot
mercial
result
munity
ddress
Goose
e LRTP
roups,
F, the
ations,
(CPP)
w and
idents
tential
transport
team for
analysis w
Communi
the result
of public
respond t
encourage
affected t
COMMUInformati
discussed
communit
C
In
Fa
COMMUIt is impo
achieve b
stakehold
context, a
communit
process; w
their conc
stakehold
improvem
impact sta
The MSB
gather pu
outreach
houses. P
1 This plan 5: Alternatinitial effor
ation improv
inclusion in
with public inp
ity involveme
ts of the analy
comments a
to the expres
e contributio
the outcomes
UNITYPAon sharing a
in the follo
ty participatio
ommunicate
nvolve a wide
acilitate comm
UNITYPAortant to be
alance and e
der brings a
and perceptio
ty participatio
will ensure th
cerns to be co
ders to unde
ments and po
atement.
2035 LRTP U
ublic input, an
needs inclu
Presentations
was updated itive Land Use. rts to identify r
ement projec
the LRTP. Th
put to formul
ent will inform
yses, and the
nd opinions
ssed needs a
n to the tech
s.
ARTICIPAand soliciting
owing sectio
on goals:
the project’s
spectrum of
munication a
ARTICIPAinclusive of
nsure the inf
different per
on of the LRT
on plan, by d
hat those aff
onsidered in t
rstand that t
tential future
pdate proces
nd involve key
de public m
s will be give
in December 2Some of the mroadway needs
cts. Commun
he communit
ate recomme
m participant
e trade‐offs o
in developm
and concerns
nical and gen
ATIONGOA input is the
ons are desig
planning and
stakeholders
nd understan
ATIONPLAall stakehold
formation gat
rspective and
TP update. Be
esign, will bri
fected by the
the in the dev
this project i
e work, and n
ss includes a
y decision‐ma
eetings, targ
en to the MS
2015 to incorpomeetings identis.
3
ity views and
ty participati
endations and
ts about the
f potential sh
ent of techn
s of the comm
neral planning
ALSe intent of a
gned to mee
d developmen
s; and,
nding among
AN1ders and to c
thered is repr
d level of un
ecause of the
ing a wide sp
e project are
velopment of
is an explora
not a design p
variety of pu
akers in the p
geted worksh
SB Transport
orate communfied in this CPP
d values will b
on process w
d solutions.
transportatio
hort‐ and long
nical solutions
munity. The
g work, and s
any public pr
et the follow
nt intent;
all project pa
conduct succ
resentative o
derstanding
e number and
ectrum of vo
heard; and w
f the LRTP. It
ation of pote
project or the
blic participa
planning proce
hops, a proje
tation Adviso
nity participatioP have already
be reflected b
will help bala
on challenges
g‐term solutio
s can help so
e public proce
share with the
rocess. The p
wing MSB 2
articipants.
cessful comm
of the commu
of the proje
d diversity of
oices, interest
will provide a
is important
entially feasi
e creation of
ation tools to
ess. Tools to
ect website,
ory Board (TA
on activities asy occurred in 20
back to the p
ance the resu
s to be addre
ons. The incl
olve problem
ess will invite
e public how
participation
035 LRTP U
munity outrea
unity at‐large;
ect’s goals, p
f stakeholder
ts, and input t
an opportuni
for the publi
ble transport
f an environm
inform the p
meet the diff
and online
AB); MSB Av
ssociated with 014 as part of
roject
ults of
essed,
lusion
s and
e and
input
tools
pdate
ach to
; each
roject
rs, the
to the
ty for
ic and
tation
mental
public,
ferent
open
viation
Task the
Advisory
MSB Asse
Communi
Area resid
document
C
En
an
U
CommuThe follow
and to sol
PublicMThe LRTP
comment
seek inpu
of meetin
MSB resid
Upon ava
One mee
public me
meetings
house est
identified
Residents
the oppo
organized
interested
informatio
agencies t
Meetings
session. A
process.
Board; City C
embly.
ty meetings w
dents of the
ted for inclus
larification an
ngagement o
nd state agen
nderstanding
unityPartiwing commu
licit their inpu
Meetings’s open hous
ts or feedbac
ut on transpo
ngs will be he
dents (see Im
ailability of th
ting will be
eetings, both
will be held w
tablished as a
at a later tim
s participating
rtunity to co
d and held a
d in or affec
on sharing in
to foster a se
will include
A note taker w
Councils of Ho
will be used t
e MSB. Stake
ion in the LRT
nd understan
of the public,
ncies; and
g of the proje
icipationTnity participa
ut, as well as
se style publ
ck from the p
rtation needs
eld in Sutton,
plementation
he Draft LRTP
held in Wasi
for the actu
within a 45‐d
an additional
me.
g in or attend
omment on t
at communit
cted by the
n addition to
nse of comm
handouts, di
will also be p
ouston, Palm
o gather publ
eholder comm
TP. Communi
ding of the LR
MSB advisory
ct goals amo
Toolsation tools w
to document
lic meetings
public. These
s, discuss pot
Big Lake, and
n Schedule fo
P (all modes
lla and will i
al meeting a
ay public com
means of ob
ding public me
the developm
ty centers o
update. Pub
comment su
unity input th
splay posters
resent to cap
4
er, and Wasi
lic input from
ments, recom
ity participati
RTP’s purpose
y boards and
ng local and s
will be used to
t the exchang
will provide
meetings wi
tential solutio
d Wasilla (to
r details).
of transporta
include a hig
nd for its ass
mment period
taining public
eetings shoul
ment of the M
or other app
lic meetings
bmittal and o
hroughout th
s, a presenta
pture key issu
illa; the MSB
the Glenn Hi
mmendations,
ion activities
e;
committees,
state agencie
o relay proje
ge of informat
a forum to
ill introduce
ons, and solic
gather input
ation), anothe
gher level of
sociated onli
d and have a
c comment. O
ld expect to r
MSB 2035 LR
propriate ven
are typically
one‐on‐one i
e MSB 2035
tion, and a f
ues or concer
Planning Com
ghway, Uppe
, concerns, a
will help fost
, community
es.
ect informatio
tion:
discuss the
the project t
cit public inp
from a wide
er public me
advertiseme
ne public me
concurrent 4
Other meetin
receive projec
RTP Update.
nues to acco
y 2 to 3 ho
interaction w
LRTP Update
facilitated que
rns for inclusi
mmission; an
r Susitna, and
and goals w
er:
councils, and
on to stakeho
project and
to the comm
ut. The first r
e representat
eting will be
ent than the
eeting. Each s
45‐day online
ng locations w
ct informatio
Meetings w
ommodate p
urs and allo
with the publi
process.
estion‐and‐an
on in the pla
nd the
d Core
will be
d local
olders
solicit
unity,
round
ion of
held.
initial
set of
open
will be
n and
will be
parties
w for
ic and
nswer
nning
WebsiteA project
comment
website,
http://ww
AlternatiHDR will o
Alternativ
provide i
changes a
will also a
The works
the MSB
invited to
Planning
Meeting i
AlternatiThe Onlin
online for
has the sa
public co
PowerPoi
materials
Benefits
complete
virtually w
informatio
source of
To ensure
web conc
website fo
the public
advertisem
the MSB
mailing lis
t website pr
ts. All work
and the we
ww.msblrtp20
iveLandUseorganize and
ve Land Use
nformation r
and funding, a
allow attende
shop is antici
Transportatio
o the afternoo
Commission,
nvitations wi
iveLandUsee Open Hous
rum accessibl
ame general f
mment perio
nt presentat
will be based
of an online
removal of
where, when
on sharing an
communicat
e the greates
current with
or 45 days. O
c meetings. M
ments that w
website, an
st.
rovides easy‐
products an
bsite will be
035.com/.
eWorkshop facilitate on
workshop is
regarding the
and the relat
es to provide
pated to have
on Advisory
on Road Serv
the Platting
ll be sent by
eOn‐lineOpse is a web‐ba
le 24 hours a
format as a p
od associated
ions and mak
d on those us
e open house
time and tr
, and for how
nd social med
ion and fact f
st possible co
the MSB 20
Online open h
Meeting adve
will be placed
announceme
‐to‐understan
nd the final M
e updated by
e 3‐hour wor
s to educate
e context of
ionship of tra
e input in the
e a maximum
Board (TAB).
vice Area/Bus
Board, and r
MSB via ema
enHouse&ased tool that
a day to any s
public open ho
d with the m
ke comments
ed in the Alte
e include an
ravel barriers
wever long t
dia, this tool c
finding.
ommunity pa
35 LRTP Upd
house visitors
ertisements fo
in the Mat‐Su
ent on the M
5
nd project u
MSB 2035 LR
y the MSB a
rkshop with c
attendees a
future trans
ansportation t
alternatives d
m attendance
Email invita
siness Works
representativ
il as well as o
MSBAlternat takes an in‐
stakeholder w
ouse, with th
meetings. The
s that can be
ernative Land
increased d
s—enabling p
hey choose.
capitalizes on
rticipation, o
date public m
s will have ac
or the online
u Valley Front
MSB Faceboo
updates and
RTP Update
as needed.
community re
about alterna
sportation d
to land use a
developed.
of 45 people
tions will be
shop (which w
ves from each
one reminder
ativeLandUperson public
with internet
he opportunit
e online ope
e added to th
d Use Worksh
diversity of th
potential par
With the gro
the trend of
online open h
meetings, and
ccess to the s
open house
tiersman, a ra
ok page, and
allows the
will be poste
The websit
epresentative
ative modes
ecisions such
and connectiv
including rep
sent to the
was held in J
h incorporate
email.
UsePresentac meeting an
access. An o
ty to be “live”
en house allo
he public rec
op.
he project’s
rticipants to
owing popula
using the int
houses will b
d will remain
ame meeting
will consist o
adio PSA, an
d an email se
public to s
ed on the p
e is accessib
es. The goal o
of transport
h as demogr
vity. This work
presentatives
people who
uly 2014) plu
ed city in the
ationd transfers it
online open h
” the entire 4
ows users to
ord. The me
audience an
attend a me
arity of web‐b
ternet as a pr
e available o
n available o
g materials us
of four news
announceme
ent to the p
ubmit
roject
ble at
of the
ation,
raphic
kshop
s from
were
us the
MSB.
to an
house
45‐day
view
eeting
d the
eeting
based
rimary
on the
on the
sed at
paper
ent on
roject
TransitWThe 2‐ho
history of
2035. A m
of the TAC
meeting w
invite the
the works
AlternatiOne 3‐ho
(potential
Email inv
workshop
exercise w
alternativ
number o
Group sco
Alternativ
CommunA Commu
raised by
Update p
houses/w
RoadSerHDR will o
(RSAs), lo
morning o
from loca
agenda fo
participan
AdditionHDR will p
M
M
C
M
M
Workshopur transit wo
f transit in the
maximum of
C will be invit
will have a w
e meeting par
shop.
iveAnalysis/our workshop
l projects, po
vitations will
p will consist
will be to so
ves will be p
of goals direc
ore. HDR will
ve Analysis/Re
nityParticipaunity Participa
the public a
process. The
workshops.
rviceArea,Borganize and
ocal businesse
or an afterno
al governmen
or review and
nts and will pr
alCommuniprovide one in
MSB TAB
MSB Aviation A
ity Councils o
MSB Planning
MSB Assembly
orkshop is in
e MSB and fo
10 people wi
ted to partici
ritten summa
rticipants and
/ResultsWop with comm
olicies, and p
be sent to
of a presenta
olicit input o
resented alo
ctly supported
l prepare a w
esults worksh
ationSummation Summa
and describes
summary w
Businessandfacilitate two
es, and Comm
oon session.
nts, coordinat
d approval by
repare a sum
ityParticipantroductory b
Advisory Boa
of Houston, Pa
Commission
y
ntended to p
or transit prov
ll be invited t
pate. The MS
ary that will d
d will prepar
orkshopmunity repres
programs) dev
the invitees
ation, an exer
on the altern
ong with info
d, mobility, a
workshop sum
hop.
maryry Report wil
s the outreac
will be updat
dCommunityo 2‐hour work
munity Counc
HDR will dev
te the list wit
the Technica
mary report t
ationActivitibriefing of the
rd
almer, and W
6
provide partic
viders to shar
to the worksh
SB will be res
discuss the co
e a summary
sentatives wi
veloped as p
s of the Alte
rcise, and a q
natives and p
ormation abo
and feasibility
mmary report
l be prepared
ch activities c
ted after eac
yCouncilWokshops with r
cils. Participa
velop an initi
th the MSB,
al Advisory Co
to document
iese project to e
Wasilla
cipants an o
re their vision
hop to be hel
ponsible for a
oncepts deve
y report to d
ll be organiz
part of the A
ernative Land
question/answ
proposed ev
out how eac
y. The exerci
t to documen
d that summa
conducted th
ch round of
orkshopsrepresentativ
ants will have
ial list of invi
and prepare
ommittee (TA
the input rec
each of the fo
pportunity to
n and future p
ld at the MSB
advertising o
eloped at the
ocument the
zed to review
lternative La
d Use Works
wer period. T
valuation. At
h element sc
se will deter
nt the input
arizes the com
hroughout th
f public mee
ves from the R
e the option
itees, includin
e a draft Wor
AC). HDR will
ceived at the
ollowing:
o learn abou
plans for tran
B offices. Mem
f the meeting
meeting. HD
e input receiv
w the Alterna
nd Use work
shop. The R
The purpose o
the meeting
cored in term
mine the Wo
received from
mments and i
he MSB 2035
etings/online
Road Service
to attend eit
ng represent
rkshop forma
invite the me
workshops.
ut the
nsit by
mbers
g. The
DR will
ved at
atives
kshop.
esults
of the
g, the
ms of
orking
m the
issues
LRTP
open
Areas
ther a
atives
at and
eeting
Additiona
project as
Personne
members
Na
Lauren Dri
Jessica Sm
Murph O’B
Laurie Cum
Tom Brigh
Allison Bia
Summer H
Implem
The recom
updated o
TargImplemen
Dat
June 2014
al presentatio
s needed.
l responsible
of the TAC a
ame
scoll
ith
Brien
mmings
am
stock
Hudson
mentation
mmended Co
on the websit
et ntation e
Laun
TAB
Avia
Fina
ons to the TA
for the succe
re identified
Table 1: M
Role
MSB Project Ma
MSB TransportaPlanner
HDR Project Ma
Deputy Project Manager
Senior TransporPlanner
Community Participation Le
Community Participation Su
Table 2: M
Nam
Lauren Drisco
Brad Sworts
Allen Kemple
David Post
Schedule
mmunity Part
te in case of c
Tabl
Recommend
nch MSB 2014 LR
Meeting
ation Advisory Bo
lize CPP
AB, Planning
essful implem
in Table 2.
SB 2035 LRTP U
Co
anager MSB
ation MSB
anager HDR
HDR
rtation HDR
ad HDR
upport HDR
SB 2035 LRTP U
me
oll M
MPla
en ADPla
ADPla
ticipation Sch
changes in da
le 3: MSB 2035
ed Communi
RTP Update web
oard Meeting
7
Commission
mentation of t
Update Commun
mpany
B 90
B 90
R 90
R 90
R 40
R 90
R 90
Update Technica
Role
SB Project Mana
SB Transportatioanner
DOT&PF MSB Aranner
DOT&PF MSB Aranner
hedule is outl
tes and/or ve
LRTP Update Im
ity Participat
bsite
n, and Assem
this CPP are id
nity Participatio
Phone
07‐745‐9855
07‐861‐8514
07‐644‐2138
07‐644‐2065
06‐532‐2211
07‐644‐2167
07‐644‐2157
al Advisory Comm
Age
ager MSB
on MSB
rea ADOT&
rea ADOT&
ined in Table
enues.
mplementation
ion Activity
mbly will occu
dentified in T
n Staff
E
Lauren.drisco
Jessica.smith@
Murph.Obrien
Laurie.Cummi
Tom.Brigham@
Allison.Biasto
Summer.Huds
mittee
ency
&PF
&PF
e 3. This inform
Respo
MS
ur throughou
able 1, and th
E‐mail
@matsugov.us
@hdrinc.com
mation will be
onsible Party
SB and HDR
HDR
ut the
he
s
m
m
m
e
Targ
ImplemenDat
July 2014
April 2016
April 2016
June 2016
August 2016
August 2016
September
October 201
October 201
November 2
December 2
CONCLThis CPP i
Communi
address u
ensure th
their sche
et ntation e
ComSuttJuly
ComFaithJuly
ComStatJuly
RSAStatSessSess
TAB
Onli
Alte
Tran
Alte
6 TAB
6 Avia
2016 Joint
16
Com
Com
Com
Onli
16 Add
2016 MSB
2016 MSB
LUSIONs a guide to c
ity and stakeh
nanticipated
at communit
edules.
Recommend
mmunity Meetinon Library 16, 2014 6:00‐8
mmunity Meetinh Bible Fellowsh17, 2014 6:00‐8
mmunity Meetinion 61 23, 2014 6:00‐8
/Local Business/ion 61 sion #1 ‐ July 23,sion #2 ‐ July 23,
Meeting
ne Open House
rnative Land Use
nsit Workshop
rnative Analysis
Meeting
ation Advisory Bo
t MSB Planning
mmunity Meeting
mmunity Meeting
mmunity Meeting
ne Open House
itional presenta
B Planning Comm
B Assembly Mee
community an
holder involve
items or issu
y members a
ed Communi
g #1 – Sutton
8:00pm
g #2 – Big Lakeip Church 8:00pm
g #3 – Wasilla
8:00pm
/Community Co
2014 9:30‐11:3 2014 1:30‐3:30
#1
e Workshop
Workshop
oard
Commission/Ass
g #4 – Wasilla
g #5 ‐ tbd
g #6 ‐ tbd
#2
tions
mission Meeting
ting
nd stakeholde
ement is a dy
ues. Any chan
nd stakehold
8
ity Participat
ouncil Workshop
0am pm
sembly Meeting
er involveme
ynamic proces
nges to the sc
ders are appri
ion Activity
ps
g
nt for the MS
ss. As such, f
chedule will b
sed as early a
Respo
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
SB 2035 LRTP
flexibility will
be posted on t
as possible to
onsible Party
SB and HDR
HDR
SB and HDR
SB and HDR
SB and HDR
SB and HDR
MSB
SB and HDR
SB and HDR
SB and HDR
SB and HDR
HDR
MSB
SB and HDR
SB and HDR
Update.
be maintaine
the website t
o accommoda
ed to
to
ate