By SUZANNE DOWNING
May 22, 2026 – Gov. Mike Dunleavy has vetoed House Bill 26, a measure that would have expanded the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities’ role in coordinating public transit planning with tribal entities, local governments, and community transit operators across the state.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Genevieve Mina, sought to formally incorporate public, tribal, and community transit programs into Alaska’s long-range transportation planning process and require the department to develop a statewide public and community transit plan.
HB 26 passed the Legislature this session. Under the legislation, DOT&PF would have been required to coordinate with metropolitan planning organizations, local governments, tribal entities, ferry operators, and the Alaska Railroad Corporation in developing transportation plans and studying alternatives to existing transportation systems.
The bill also expanded the department’s statutory duty to study transportation alternatives beyond urban areas to include rural and remote Alaska.
A new section of law created by the bill would have directed the department to “develop a statewide public and community transit plan” in coordination with public and tribal transit operators statewide. It’s a Democrat wet dream.
The sponsor pointed to programs such as Anchorage People Mover, Juneau Capital Transit, Nome’s Tribal Transit Program, Tok’s Interior Alaska Bus Line, and ferry operators as examples of the types of transit systems that would have been included in the planning process.
The sponsor statement for the bill noted that public transit provides benefits including reduced congestion, improved mobility, lower pollution, and better access to jobs, schools, and healthcare. The legislation also emphasized the importance of transportation access for elderly residents, youth, low-income Alaskans, and people with disabilities. What it did not say is that most public transportation, such as city buses, are vastly under utilized.
Dunleavy vetoed the measure on May 20. The governor’s veto message had not yet been circulated at the time of publication.
