MPOs warn Alaska STIP still needs fixes after federal letters; DOT response remains unclear

Jackson Fox, executive director of Fairbanks Area Surface Transportation (Fast Planning), and Aaron Yonganellan, director of the Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions (AMATS), told the House Transportation Committee on Jan. 23 that the 2024–2027 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) contains coordination, fiscal and technical problems that federal reviewers have identified and partially rejected.

Fox told the committee the STIP, the four‑year document that shows how Alaska’s federal highway apportionment will be spent, "is the most important document that DOT produces," and said the version released for public review in July 2023 lacked required coordination with metropolitan planning organizations, local governments and tribal entities. He and AMATS staff said projects were inserted into the STIP that were not in local long‑range plans or TIPs and that the STIP did not demonstrate fiscal constraint as required by federal regulation.

The lack of coordination and inconsistent data led federal partners—the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration—to issue multi‑page letters (Fox said one was 26 pages and a later letter about partial approval was about 30 pages) finding deficiencies and listing corrective actions. After an extension and subsequent submittals, Fox said the federal partners in September 2024 issued another partial approval with a 16‑page letter; DOT was asked to produce a STIP action plan and hold monthly meetings with federal reviewers.

Why it matters: the STIP translates federal apportionments (Fox said "just over $700,000,000 per year" in FHWA apportionments) into projects statewide; if the STIP is not approvable it can delay or reduce construction work, impede MPO TIPs (which are incorporated into the STIP) and put federal funding at risk. Fox told the committee that an apparent $170 million shortfall in 2024 obligations reduced construction work in Fairbanks and Anchorage and that a large balance of "advanced construction" (about $900 million as discussed in committee testimony) was shown in the STIP without clear payback years.

Specific concerns described to the committee included:

- Coordination: Both presenters said DOT staff historically worked with MPOs during development. Fox said management of the STIP development moved from DOT planning and program development to the commissioner’s office in 2023; he said he had not observed that management change before and that it "created a higher level [of] anxiety" among MPO technical and policy committees. Aaron Yonganellan said AMATS and DOT planning used to coordinate frequently but that this STIP round came with "radio silence" until the draft was released for public comment.

- Projects not in local plans: Fox and Yonganellan said projects or project phases appeared in the STIP that were not identified in local long‑range plans or the MPO TIP. Fox cited bridge projects near Fairbanks that were not in Fast Planning’s local plans; Yonganellan cited four projects in AMATS’ area added to the STIP that were not in AMATS’ Metropo­litan Transportation Plan.

- Fiscal constraint and data errors: Fox and Yonganellan said totals in the STIP did not reconcile. Fox said when project totals were added statewide the STIP looked like "about a $6,000,000,000" investment across four years while the available apportionments were closer to "3 to 4,000,000,000," which indicates the STIP did not clearly demonstrate that spending would be limited to expected revenues. Yonganellan gave a specific example in which a Sterling Highway project listed a $330 million cost in narrative text but table totals summed to roughly $431 million; he called this type of mismatch a fiscal‑constraint concern.

- Advanced construction and conversions: Both presenters flagged a large volume of "advanced construction" (borrowing future federal funds to pay current projects). Fox cited roughly $900 million and said the STIP did not show how those borrowings would be paid back in later years; AMATS said conversions and payback years were hard to find in the tables.

- Program and eligibility issues: Fox said the STIP included new statewide programs not previously described in the state long‑range plan and projects programmed with fund types that federal reviewers identified as ineligible (Fox cited LED streetlight conversions being paired with Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funds as an example raised by federal partners).

Federal response and next steps described in testimony

Fox said FHWA and FTA issued findings and corrective actions and that DOT’s submittals through early 2024 did not fully resolve the items. He said DOT submitted letters contesting many findings and that DOT leadership met with FHWA in Washington; Fox said one corrective item was overturned (the Chena flood control project at the edge of Fast Planning’s boundary was allowed to proceed), but "all other planning and finding [corrective actions] remain unchanged and still need to be resolved within STIP Amendment Number 2." He said STIP Amendment 2 had been stated as planned for January but that FHWA requested a preliminary review that could push the release into February.

Yonganellan said AMATS and the other MPOs were assigned a set of corrective actions tied to AMATS’ TMA certification review; AMATS completed six corrective actions from the certification review with central DOT support, but he said communication on the remainder of STIP corrective items has been limited. AMATS staff said a draft 3‑C (continuing, comprehensive and cooperative) process document was developed with DOT and the MPOs but that AMATS had not yet received a final version from DOT.

Local impacts and fiscal risks discussed

Both presenters described reduced street work in 2024 and a smaller bid calendar for 2025. Fox said the Fairbanks bid calendar showed roughly $25–30 million in work versus a historical average of about $50 million, and he described direct economic impacts on local contractors and workers. Both witnesses warned that unresolved planning findings could expose the state to federal enforcement tools; Fox and AMATS staff said FHWA can require more review, change certification or—if disagreements persist—use compliance tools that could affect match rates or the state’s access to some federal funds.

Items to watch listed by the presenters included whether Amendment 2 addresses the corrective actions, whether the STIP aligns National Highway Freight Program funds with the state's freight investment plan (Fox said some freight funds were originally earmarked for the Dalton and Sterling highways but then reprogrammed), the status of National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure funds (Fox said about $52 million was apportioned to Alaska for the Anchorage–Fairbanks corridor), whether PROTECT resilience funds are fully programmed (about $93 million was referenced), and whether the $170 million unobligated 2024 funds can be carried forward.

At the committee meeting several members asked for follow‑up sessions with DOT; the committee chair announced that DOT would be on the Jan. 28 House Transportation Committee agenda for additional questioning and public remarks.

The presenters provided committee members with the chronology of submissions, FHWA/FTA findings and partial approvals, and urged close legislative oversight until Amendment 2 resolves the outstanding corrective actions.