DOT bridge project resolution heads to Assembly | Local news

Members of the House briefly discussed the topic during last week’s work session.

State law requires DOT to obtain local planning authority approval for major transportation projects in the Fairbanks North Star Borough.

According to Kellen Spillman, the township’s director of community planning, the planning commission reviews such projects to ensure consistency with the township’s comprehensive plan. If you deny or impose conditions on a project, the project will be sent to the Borough Assembly for final action.

Planning commissioners rejected the plan because it did not meet comprehensive plan guidelines related to multimodal connectivity and safety, did not follow Fairbanks Area Surface Transportation Planning requirements and were concerned that a single-span bridge with a divided traffic barrier would bring too many people . risks.

The General Assembly can deny the request, but the governor’s office can waive the decision if it is deemed a significant need for the state.

“All of this comes from consistency with the comprehensive plan and there’s a lot of talk about not liking certain features,” Spillman said.

Lauren Little, DOT Northern Region pre-construction engineer, said replacing the bridge is “a bread-and-butter project” that will not make any changes to rights-of-way or have significant environmental impacts.

DOT plans to replace the northbound and southbound bridges on the Richardson Highway with a modern single bridge. DOT officials cited several reasons, including that the bridges are nearing the end of their 50-year design life, do not meet current weight limits and do not meet current seismic and structural needs.

“These are the lowest rated bridges between Delta Junction and Fairbanks on our interstate corridor of the Richardson Highway,” Little said.

Little added: The bridge is exempt from the current compliance freeze on federal highway funds imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency due to a partial rejection of the state’s air quality improvement plan for the Fairbanks/Arctic Region.

DOT initially considered replacing one bridge and rehabilitating the second bridge, but determined it would be more cost-effective to replace it with a single span. Little said, a single span also provides significant improvements in flood control for the Army Corps of Engineers-controlled dam system.

“If we can put something in there that is the same or better hydraulically, it can be approved,” Little said. “If we have more things in the ground, things aren’t better hydraulically.”

During the planning commission hearing in March, planning commissioners asked why DOT couldn’t leave the south bridge in place, either as a standalone multi-use bridge or as a backup in case of vehicle accidents.

Little is said that leaving the southbound bridge intact would negatively impact flood control efforts and could collapse during a major flood or earthquake.

She added that DOT rejected the idea of ​​adding a dedicated segregated bike pool because it would require a full environmental review and cost $15 million.

Construction of the southern half of the new bridge would begin in late 2024 and be completed in 2025, with demolition of the northern bridge scheduled for 2025. Construction of the new northern side will begin in 2026, followed by the old southern bridge in 2027 .

Assemblymember David Guttenberg expressed concerns about dedicated bicycle safety, similar to planning commissioners.

“If we don’t build this now, it will never be built to accommodate bicycles and non-motorized traffic,” Guttenberg said. Although the new bridge will have wider shoulders, it is unlikely that cyclists will use it.

Little is said that any dedicated segregated cycle path must be included in a plan and have the infrastructure to connect to it before it can be built.

“In the absence of existing infrastructure, we would not build out part of a component that could be built in the future,” Little said.

Assemblymember Barbara Haney responded that the bridge project area has several water pollution problems, including sulfolane and forever chemicals.

“I don’t know how much recreation we want to encourage in this particular area,” Haney said. “Has DOT considered that?”

Daughtery noted that the bridge project did not delve into recreational components.

“We just came here to replace an old, dirty bridge,” Daughtery. “The segregated, non-motorized facility caught us off guard… It is not something we would normally consider when replacing interstate bridges if there is no existing facility.”

Assemblymember Mindy O’Neall referred to recreational activities that take place in the floodplain and surrounding bridge area and asked why they were not taken into account in the bridge plan.

Little said the Army Corps of Engineers designated these specific areas for recreation, but it doesn’t apply to state law itself.

“I would personally have a hard time seeing those groups of people wanting to jump up and stand next to the cars when they have a piece of land where motorized activities are prohibited,” Little said.

When asked about the existing rail connections, Planning Commission Chairman Kerynn Fisher said the bridge is slightly ahead of the council’s plans for trail development. She added that the Salcha-Badger Plan requires future improvements and expansion of the trail network, but is not yet fully developed given city staffing and budget constraints.

“But given the lifespan of the (new) bridge, we could build something that connects to the bridge and that would be easier to connect to the intersection than to retrofit it,” Fisher said. “This is a bigger ask for the community, but replacing the bridge will help us move forward.”

Assembly members Brett Rotermund and Scott Crass noted concerns about a single bridge versus two bridges.

“We basically have all our eggs in one basket and if anything were to happen to it, we would be cut off,” Rotermund said. “If one of the (existing) bridges falls, we can now just move traffic to the other bridge.”

Little reiterated that if a major flood or earthquake were to occur, it could make the existing bridge system unsafe or destroy it.

“Our one bridge is much more resilient to anything that could damage a bridge in this area than the existing two bridges,” Little said. “It would take a pretty big event to affect new bridges.”

The General Assembly will meet at the Juanita Helms office on Thursday at 6 p.m

Center, 907 Terminal St. The Flood Control Project bridge resolution, along with other public hearing items, will be discussed after 7 p.m.