DOCSLIB.ORG

2007 Matanuska-Susitna Borough Long Range Transportation Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2007 Matanuska-Susitna Borough Long Range Transportation Plan Mat-Su Borough Long-Range Transportation Plan Final Report Prepared for: Matanuska-Susitna Borough Prepared by: HDR Alaska, Inc. ADOPTED: June 2007 Mat-Su Borough Long-Range Transportation Plan Final Report Prepared for: Matanuska-Susitna Borough Prepared by: HDR Alaska, Inc. ADOPTED: June 2007 Mat‐Su Borough Long Range Transportation Plan Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1‐1 1.1 Setting................................................................................................................................ 1‐1 1.2 Purpose of Planning ........................................................................................................ 1‐3 1.3 Planning Process.............................................................................................................. 1‐4 1.4 Community Comprehensive Plans ............................................................................... 1‐4 2 Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................................... 2‐1 2.1 Economy and Quality of Life ......................................................................................... 2‐1 2.2 Safety ................................................................................................................................. 2‐2 2.3 Environment.....................................................................................................................2‐3 2.4 Public Participation ......................................................................................................... 2‐4 2.5 Road and Trail System.................................................................................................... 2‐5 2.6 Public Transportation...................................................................................................... 2‐7 2.7 Air Transportation........................................................................................................... 2‐7 2.8 Rail Transportation.......................................................................................................... 2‐8 2.9 Waterborne Transportation............................................................................................ 2‐9 3 Population and Economics.......................................................................................................... 3‐1 3.1 Population......................................................................................................................... 3‐1 3.2 Housing............................................................................................................................. 3‐4 3.3 Economic Trends ............................................................................................................. 3‐5 3.4 Employment and Earnings............................................................................................. 3‐6 3.5 Labor Force ..................................................................................................................... 3‐10 3.6 Population and Vehicles ............................................................................................... 3‐12 3.7 Future Population and Employment Projections...................................................... 3‐15 4 Road System .................................................................................................................................. 4‐1 4.1 Functional Classification System................................................................................... 4‐1 4.2 Construction Standards .................................................................................................. 4‐3 4.3 Central Area Road System ............................................................................................. 4‐3 4.4 Rural Area Road System............................................................................................... 4‐23 4.5 Emergency Access Roads ............................................................................................. 4‐32 4.6 Corridor Preservation ................................................................................................... 4‐33 4.7 Congestion Management.............................................................................................. 4‐36 4.8 Access Management...................................................................................................... 4‐40 5 Trails System ................................................................................................................................. 5‐1 5.1 Separated Pathways ........................................................................................................ 5‐1 5.2 Future Separated Pathway Projects .............................................................................. 5‐4 5.3 Primitive Trails................................................................................................................. 5‐4 5.4 Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 5‐6 6 Public Transportation................................................................................................................... 6‐1 6.1 Local Transit Service ....................................................................................................... 6‐1 6.2 Existing Commuter Services .......................................................................................... 6‐5 6.3 Rail Commuter Service ................................................................................................... 6‐7 Mat‐Su Borough Long Range Transportation Plan Page i 6.4 Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 6‐11 7 Air Transportation........................................................................................................................ 7‐1 7.1 Existing Air Transportation Facilities........................................................................... 7‐1 7.2 Municipal Airports.......................................................................................................... 7‐4 7.3 Private Airports................................................................................................................ 7‐5 7.4 Controlled Airspace and Reserved Airspace............................................................... 7‐6 7.5 Recommendations of Prior Air Transportation Studies............................................. 7‐6 7.6 Existing Federal Regulations.......................................................................................... 7‐7 7.7 Existing Local Regulations ............................................................................................. 7‐8 7.8 Discussion of Issues......................................................................................................... 7‐8 7.9 Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 7‐9 8 Alaska Railroad............................................................................................................................. 8‐1 8.1 Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................... 8‐1 8.2 Wasilla Area Alternate Routes....................................................................................... 8‐2 8.3 Near‐Term Projects.......................................................................................................... 8‐3 8.4 Railroad‐Highway Grade Crossings............................................................................. 8‐3 9 Marine Transportation................................................................................................................. 9‐1 9.1 Port Development............................................................................................................ 9‐1 9.2 Point MacKenzie to Anchorage Ferry........................................................................... 9‐6 9.3 River and Lake Waterborne Transportation................................................................ 9‐9 9.4 Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 9‐10 List of Figures on or following page 1‐1 Mat‐Su Borough Overview ......................................................................................................... 1‐1 3‐1 Population Growth, 1970‐2000, Alaska & Mat‐Su Borough ................................................... 3‐1 3‐2 2000 Matanuska‐Susitna Borough Population Percentage by Race ...................................... 3‐4 3‐3 1990 Percent Distribution of Employment by Industry, Mat‐Su Borough ........................... 3‐9 3‐4 2000 Percent Distribution of Employment by Industry, Mat‐Su Borough ........................... 3‐9 3‐5 Work Locations for Mat‐Su Out‐of‐Borough Commuters, 2001.......................................... 3‐10 3‐6 Number of Vehicles Registered, 1980‐2003, Mat‐Su Borough.............................................. 3‐13 3‐7 Registered Passenger and Commercial Vehicles, 1980, 1990 & 2000, Mat‐Su Borough.......................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • June 30 Final DOT Layout.Indd
    Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 2010 Department Overview June 30, 2011 THE MISSION of the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities is to provide for the safe and effi cient movement of people and goods and the delivery of state services. Table of Contents Letter from Commissioner Luiken . 3 Introduction . 4 Challenges in Alaska Transportation . .5-7 Long Range Transportation Policy Plan . 8 Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) . 9-11 Budget . 12 Divisions and Responsibilities . 13 Statewide Aviation . 13 International Airports . 14 Marine Highway System . 15 Surface Transportation . 16 Transportation Operations . 17-18 Bridge Section . 19 Ports and Harbors . 20 Resource Roads. 21 Transportation Safety . 22 Statewide Systems . 23 Bicycle and Pedestrian Program . 24 Data Services . 25 Buildings and Facilities . 26 Measurement Standards . 27 The Road Ahead . 28 The 2010 Department Overview was produced by the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities in Juneau, Alaska, at a cost of $9.96 per copy. Cover and inside cover photos (Kodiak roads), back cover (M/V Columbia, Auke Bay), and this page (Dutch Harbor bridge), by Peter Metcalfe 2 Waterfront construction, Kotzebue, by Peter Metcalfe June 30, 2011 Dear Fellow Alaskan, As the Commissioner of the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, it is my pleasure to present the 2010 Department Overview. All Alaskans use the state’s transportation system, whether they are driving to work, headed for the outdoors, meeting the ferry, or catching a fl ight at the local airport. We use these transportation systems daily, and often take them for granted, unaware of the effort that happens behind the scenes to keep the systems working.
    [Show full text]
  • A WHITE PAPER EXPLAINING the Need for The
    A WHITE PAPER EXPLAINING The Need for the 2011 Alaska Legislature to Examine the Financial Plans of the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority By Jamie Kenworthy, [email protected] Bob French, [email protected] February 2011 SUMMARY The Knik Arm Bridge cannot be built unless: (1) the State guarantees repayment of the debt necessary to finance the bridge, (2) that guarantee would need to make up the annual shortfall between toll revenues and expenses, including debt repayment, and (3) the State agrees to spend on the bridge a substantial portion of all federal money available for transportation statewide. The legislature must exercise some oversight on the project because Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority (KABATA) intends to issue an RFP for the $700 million to $1 billion dollar first phase of this project. If KABATA proceeds as planned, the State will be exposed to considerable financial liability and transportation projects statewide will be jeopardized. Using federal and state numbers, the deficits for the first 10 years of Bridge operations will significantly exceed the approximately $25 million per year that Anchorage or Mat Su have averaged over the last decade on total state and federal spending on transportation. I. Background The Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority, a quasi-independent state agency with a Governor-appointed Board of Directors, has a sole purpose to construct and operate the proposed Knik Arm Bridge. The original federal funds with their small state match, total $114 million. Half of those funds or approximately $61 million remains unspent. Since the federal money was de-earmarked, the State of Alaska can decide how it spends the remaining funds, if those funds do not go to KABATA.
    [Show full text]
  • Cook Inlet Beluga Whales: 3,000 Square Miles of Critical Habitat Proposed
    http://ecoworldly.com/2009/12/02/cook-inlet-beluga-whales-3000-square-miles-of-critical-habitat-proposed/ Cook Inlet Beluga Whales: 3,000 Square Miles of Critical Habitat Proposed Written by Rhishja Larson Published on December 2nd, 2009 The National Marine Fisheries Service has proposed to designate over 3,000 square miles of critical habitat for endangered Cook Inlet beluga whales. Good news for critically endangered Cook Inlet beluga whales: The Center for Biological Diversity announced today that over 3,000 square miles of critical habitat has been proposed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). » See also: Yemen No Longer Major Destination for Illegal Rhino Horn » Get EcoWorldly by RSS or sign up by email. Unfortunately, the Cook Inlet beluga whale population has plummeted in recent years. An October 2009 population survey found only 321 whales. Even in the 1980’s, there were reportedly as few as 1,300 of this imperiled species. Cook Inlet beluga whale numbers were slashed by overhunting, and now the species is failing to recover, most likely as a result of increasing industrial activities in Alaska. Cook Inlet is the most populated and fastest-growing watershed in Alaska, and is subject to significant proposed offshore oil and gas development in beluga habitat. Additionally, the proposed Knik Arm Bridge, a billion-dollar boondoggle, will directly affect some of the whale’s most important habitat. Port expansion and a proposed giant coal mine and coal export dock would also destroy key beluga habitat. Senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity Brendan Cummings noted via today’s release that although the proposal is a welcome step in the right direction for the Cook Inlet belugas, industrial development needs to be curtailed.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Infrastructure Needs in Alaska
    S. HRG. 108–349 TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS IN ALASKA FIELD HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON OVERSIGHT OF THE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS IN THE STATE OF ALASKA APRIL 14, 2003—PALMER, ALASKA Printed for the use of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 92–373 PDF WASHINGTON : 2004 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri MAX BAUCUS, Montana GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio HARRY REID, Nevada MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho BOB GRAHAM, Florida LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN CORNYN, Texaa BARBARA BOXER, California LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York ANDREW WHEELER, Majority Staff Director KEN CONNOLLY, Minority Staff Director (II) CONTENTS Page APRIL 14, 2003—PALMER, ALASKA OPENING STATEMENTS Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska ........................... 1 WITNESSES Anderson, Hon. Tim, Mayor, Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska ................... 20 Angasan, Trefon, Co-Chair, Board of Directors, Alaska Federation of Natives . 10 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 Barton, Michael, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities .................................................................................................... 6 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35 Boyles, Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • Report Appendices
    LAKE HOOD SEAPLANE BASE MASTER PLAN UPDATE Report Appendices September 2017 DOWL in conjunction with : RS&H, Southeast Strategies, and Solstice Advertising APPENDIX A Historical Photos of LHD THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK APPENDIX B Initial Survey Report THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK LAKE HOOD SEAPLANE BASE MASTER PLAN UPDATE User Survey Results April 2015 DOWL in conjunction with : RS&H, Southeast Strategies, and Solstice Advertising LAKE HOOD MASTER PLAN USER SURVEY RESULTS ANCHORAGE, ALASKA Prepared for: State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport P.O. Box 196960 Anchorage, Alaska 99519 Prepared by: DOWL 4041 B Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503 (907) 562-2000 AKSAS Number: 57737 April 2015 Lake Hood Master Plan Anchorage, Alaska User Survey Report April 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ...............................................................................................1 WHO RESPONDED TO THE SURVEY .......................................................................................3 WHY DO YOU OPERATE FROM LHD .......................................................................................6 AIRCRAFT TYPES OPERATING OR POTENTIALLY OPERATING AT LHD .......................8 CAN/SHOULD LHD GROW .........................................................................................................9 INTEREST IN LEASING AND DEVELOPING AT LHD ..........................................................10 TYPE
    [Show full text]
  • DOTPF Alaskan Airports, AIP, APEB
    Northern Region Airport Overview -------------------------------------------- DOT&PF Town Hall Meeting October 22, 2010 Jeff Roach, Aviation Planner Northern Region, DOT&PF Topics • Northern Region Airports • Northern Region Aviation Sections • Aviation Funding • Types of Projects • Anticipated Future Funding Levels • Anticipated Northern Region Projects Northern Region 105 Airports 40% of the State’s airports are in the Northern Region • One International Airport • Seaplane Bases • Community Airports • Public, Locally Owned Airports Northern Region Aviation Organization • Planning • Design • Construction • Airport Leasing • Maintenance and Operations (M&O) Aviation Planning • Identify project needs, develops project packages for APEB scoring • Develop project scopes • Conduct airport master plans Project Needs Identification Rural Airports Needs List Development Project needs collected from: • Public, aviation interests, community representatives, DOT&PF and FAA staff, Legislature • DOT&PF Staff (Design, M&O, Leasing) • Needs identified in airport master plans • Regional transportation plans Project Scoping: DOT&PF Regional staff evaluate potential projects to develop preliminary project scope, cost estimate and other supporting information for APEB project evaluation State AIP Project Scoring (APEB) Aviation Project Evaluation Board (APEB): • The APEB is a six-member airport capital project review and evaluation group composed of DOT&PF’s Deputy Commissioner, three Regional Directors (SE, CR, NR), Statewide Planning Director, and State
    [Show full text]
  • Airport Advisory Commission
    City of Wasilla 290 E Herning Avenue, Wasilla, Alaska Commissioners Commissioners Noel Lowe Wasilla Airport Advisory Raymond Block Charles Morris Commission Adam Paulick, Chair John Popecki, Vice Chair Cameron Sharick Regular Meeting Agenda Michael Lucas www.cityofwasilla.com Meeting Date 907-373-9010 Location October 25, 2018 Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. Wasilla City Hall 290 E Herning Avenue Page 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting Minutes: April 19, 2018 3 - 5 6. STAFF REPORTS 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS (THREE MINUTES PER PERSON) 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS Wasilla Municipal Airport Construct Apron E Phase 1 10. PUBLIC COMMENTS (THREE MINUTES PER PERSON) 11. STAFF AND COMMISSION COMMENTS 12. ADJOURNMENT Airport Advisory Commission Meeting Packet - 10/25/18 Page 1 of 5 Page 2 of 5 WASILLA AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 19, 2018 COMMISSIONERS Noel Lowe PRESENT: John Popecki Raymond Block Adam Paulick Cameron Sharick Michael Lucas in at 6:05 PM COMMISSIONERS Charles Morris ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Archie Giddings, Public Works Director Jolene Cooper, Finance Clerk II Ashley Loyer, Commission Secretary 1. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Airport Advisory Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. on April 19, 2018, in Council Chambers of City Hall, Wasilla, Alaska by Chair Paulick. 2. ROLL CALL Upon roll call, a quorum of the Wasilla Airport Advisory Commission was established. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Paulick led the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented without objection by unanimous consent.
    [Show full text]
  • Public-Data File 88-21 GROUND-WATER-QUALITY
    Public-data File 88-21 GROUND-WATER-QUALITY MONITORING NETWORKS IN ALASKA 1 Danita L. Maynard Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys July 1988 THIS REPORT HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED FOR TECHNICAL CONTENT (EXCEPT AS NOTED IN TEXT) OR FOR CONFORMITY TO THE EDITORIAL STANDARDS OF DGGS. 794 University Avenue, Suite 200 Fairbanks, Alaska 99709-3645 'DGGS, 18225 Fish Hatchery Road, P.O. Box 772116, Eagle River, Alaska 99577. Table of Contents PAGE Introduction............................. 1 Northern Region Ambient Trend ~onitorik~ U.S. Geological Survey .................... 2 Site Monitoring U.S.DepartmentofDefense .................. 2 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation........ 3 Alaska Department o'f Natural Resources ............ 6 University of Alaska ..................... 6 Public Water System (PWS) Monitoring Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ........ 7 Alaska Department of Fish and Game .............. 16 Southcentral Region Ambient Trend Monitoring Alaska Department of Natural Resources ............ 18 Municipality of Anchorage .................. 18 Site Monitoring U.S. Department of Defense .................. 19 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ........ 20 Public Water System (PWS) ~onitoring Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ........ 41 Alaska Department of Fish and Game .............. 64 Southeast Region Public Water System (PWS) Monitoring Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ........ 66 CURRENT AND RECENT GROUND-WATER QUALITY MONITORING NETWORKS IN ALASKA INTRODUCTION This report contains data supplemental to Maynard (1988), an evaluation of ground-water quality monitoring in Alaska. Ground-water quality monitoring is necessary to assess trends in ground-water quality, detect or assess ground-water contamination, assess remediation efforts, and assure potability of public-water systems (PWS) using ground-water supplies. The monitoring networks included here are administered by federal, state, or local agencies within Alaska.
    [Show full text]
  • E. Transportation and Public Transit West Anchorage District Plan
    E. Transportation and Public Transit West Anchorage District Plan TRANSPORTATION The West Anchorage transportation system is comprised of surface road, railroad, aviation, public transit, and nonmotorized (pedestrian, bicycle, and trail) facilities. Other components of Anchorage’s transportation system include freight distribution, regional connections, and congestion management (MOA, 2005). Inter-Bowl travel is dominated by personal vehicles on the surface road network, but this chapter will discuss the current state of all elements of West Anchorage’s transportation system and its associated facilities. Relationship to Other Transportation Plans Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions (AMATS) is the federally designated metropolitan planning organization responsible for transportation planning in the entire Municipality. The Anchorage Bowl 2025 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) with 2027 Revisions (MOA, 2005) was developed through the AMATS planning process and is used to identify current and future system deficiencies that need improvement to meet MOA future traffic needs. It is subject to annual review and possible revision. The LRTP meets the federal long-range transportation planning requirements the MOA needs to apply for federal transportation funding. The Official Streets and Highways Plan (OSHP) identifies (by ordinance) the locations, classifications, and minimum right-of-way requirements of the street and highway system needed to meet LRTP goals over a 25 year planning period. LRTP recommended system improvements are funded through the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (Federal), Alaska Transportation Fund (Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities [ADOT&PF]), and Capital Improvements Program (MOA). This chapter will describe each mode of transportation as it relates to West Anchorage and how that would have an impact on land use planning.
    [Show full text]
  • Remote Desktop Redirected Printer
    %208% %208% Page 1 of 6 Opened --Project Name Item Number Unit (f) Quantity Eng Project (VersionID/Aksas/Ref. Description (f) (f) Est Min Avg Max Low Bid Std. ID)------ Bid Bid Bid Amount (f) 66 Listed Low 2nd 3rd Bidder Low Low % of Bidder Bidder Bid % of % of Bid Bid 2018 Nenana Little Goldstream 202(23) Lump 1 21,500.00 48,055.56 76,000.00 936,532 01 Bridge Replacement Removal of Existing Sum 65,000.00 21,500.00 52,000.00 30,000.00 (#2080) (45491//5517) Bridge No. 2080 3.98% 2.30% 5.51% 3.00% 9 Bids Tendered 2018 Nenana Little Goldstream 202(23) Square 942.0 22.82 51.01 80.68 936,532 01 Bridge Replacement Removal of Existing Foot 69.00 22.82 55.20 31.85 (#2080) (45491) Bridge No. 2080 (Alt) 3.98% 2.30% 5.51% 3.00% 9 Bids Tendered 2014 Haines Ferry Terminal 208(1) Each 21 1,000.00 6,612.50 9,950.00 14,979,745 05 Improvements GROUND ANCHORS 5,000.00 8,500.00 9,950.00 7,000.00 (39251/68433/0) 1.08% 1.19% 1.30% 0.91% 4 Bids Tendered 2016 Skagway - Replace 208(1) Linear 2,100 158.22 249.64 390.00 18,907,426 12 Captain William Henry Stabilization - Rock Foot 355.00 158.22 200.00 200.00 Moore Bridge Bolt 5.44% 1.76% 2.08% 1.94% (46281//1432) 5 Bids Tendered 2017 Haines Highway 208(1) Linear 3,885 55.00 66.50 80.00 36,149,513 11 Reconstruction Milepost Stabilization - Rock Foot 160.00 80.00 76.00 55.00 3.9 to 12.2, Phase 1 Bolt 1.68% 0.86% 0.80% 0.53% (47539//0) 4 Bids Tendered 2016 Skagway - Replace 208(2) Linear 875 158.22 248.44 359.00 18,907,426 12 Captain William Henry Stabilization - Foot 415.00 158.22 225.00 200.00 Moore Bridge (46281//0)
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for Freight NEEDS– ALASKA
    GREATEST The Case for Freight NEEDS– ALASKA Increasing capacity on “The Knik Arm Bridge is transformative to the region. Its multi- our nation’s modal connectivity for the movement of people and freight and transportation the network redundancy and connectivity it provides for safety system will: and security fits perfectly with the department’s mission.” • Unlock Gridlock, —Frank Richards, Deputy Commissioner for Highways and Public Facilities • Generate Jobs, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities • Deliver Freight, • Access Energy, Freight Capacity Needs Knik Arm Bridge—Anchorage, Alaska • Connect Communities Anchorage is a state transportation center. 90% of seaborne container cargo coming to Did you know? the state is landed at the Port of Anchorage. Anchorage International Airport is within 9 hours of 95% of the industrialized world, and is the fifth largest freight airport in the • The amount of freight world for total throughput. The Alaska Railroad hauled in excess of 540,000 passengers moved in this coun- and 6 million tons of freight in 2008. The Knik Arm Bridge is a key component in the fur- try—from milk, tooth- ther development and sophistication of the state’s transportation infrastructure. paste and toilet paper Freight landed at the Port of Anchorage can be expedited much more quickly to northern to sparkplugs, wheat destinations on the Parks Highway by crossing the bridge. The development of a port at and wind turbines—is Point MacKenzie will expand the state’s capacity for export of resources and products expected to double in and will provide staging for future gasline construction or other major resource develop- the next 40 years? ment projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Twenty-Ninth Update of the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket
    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 03/03/2016 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2016-04692, and on FDsys.gov 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL- 9943-17-OLEM] Twenty-Ninth Update of the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Since 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has maintained a Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket (“Docket”) under Section 120(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Section 120(c) requires EPA to establish a Docket that contains certain information reported to EPA by Federal facilities that manage hazardous waste or from which a reportable quantity of hazardous substances has been released. As explained further below, the Docket is used to identify Federal facilities that should be evaluated to determine if they pose a threat to public health or welfare and the environment and to provide a mechanism to make this information available to the public. This notice includes the complete list of Federal facilities on the Docket and also identifies Federal facilities reported to EPA since the last update of the Docket on August17, 2015. In addition to the list of additions to the Docket, this notice includes a section with revisions of the previous Docket list. Thus, the revisions in this update include 7 additions, 22 corrections, and 42 deletions to the Docket since the previous update. At the time of publication of this notice, the new total number of Federal facilities listed on the Docket is 2,326.
    [Show full text]