Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/06/2004 02:15 PM Senate TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 371-POWERS/DUTIES DOTPF
CO-CHAIR COWDERY announced SB 371 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR THERRIAULT moved to adopt CSSB 371(TRA), version /D.
There were no objections and it was so ordered.
MR. DOUG LETCH, staff to Senator Gary Stevens, sponsor,
explained that the CS deletes page 3, line 22 - page 4, line 8.
MS. NONA WILSON, Legislative Liaison, Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF), said she would
answer questions. She noted a rebuttal statement to Jeffery
Parker's letter of March 25 from the department in the committee
packets.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER said the members could do their own comparisons
since they had the documents to go through.
MR. BOB DOLL, former director of Southeast Region of DOT, said:
It does not seem to me to make for good government to
reduce the amount of information that the legislature
and the public have in regard to the projects that DOT
proposes to undertake. This is, of course, especially
true now that the flow of federal transportation money
seems to be ever increasing.
He said that the legislatures from the previous two terms wanted
the benefits of an analysis to consider the projects in that
period of time. He asked the committee to consider what the
elimination of it would accomplish. DOTPF can conduct whatever
kind of analysis it wants; it is capable of publishing
regulations that would address most of its concerns. He thought
that a cost benefit analysis was a reasonable exercise of the
legislative oversight process over the Department of
Transportation and how its funds are spent. It provides data
regarding proposed projects that can be obtained in no other way
and does not put an unreasonable burden on the department.
TAPE 04-16, SIDE B
MR. JEFF PARKER, plaintiff's counsel, in Trout Unlimited and Bob
Gillam versus Alaska Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (DOTPF), had four concerns:
First, the bill should at least state the name of the
court case correctly, which it doesn't do.
Second, section 1 is directed towards the injunction
issued in January, which will probably only remain in
effect until July 2004, because that is the date which
the DOT has told the court when it would complete the
cost benefit analysis pursuant to the court order.
Nothing would be gained by overturning the injunction.
What would be lost is the information available to the
legislature that should address whether or not the
project is cost effective for purposes of budgeting.
Thirdly, this bill is eliminating the only objective
criteria in state statute for determining whether one
project or another is more worthy. Without those
criteria, I would like you to put on record how those
prioritization decisions would be made.
Fourthly, the draft Valdez Regional Transportation
Plan that was released January 5 shows $1.2 billion in
the out years in new road projects. The Southwest
region has a $379 million King Salmon to Chignik Road.
Another $100 million is proposed for new roads from
Williams Port to Iliamna, plus South Central has the
Knik River Bridge proposal, which has funds earmarked.
He estimated $2 billion to $3 billion in road projects in the
next 20 years or about $150 million per year. Current federal
funding is about $305 million per year and the cost benefits
pencil out very unfavorably.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER interrupted to point out that a lot of the
projects he is alluding to don't have a lot to do with this
project.
MR. PARKER said he was trying to explain why repealing a cost
benefit analysis is detrimental to good decisions making.
MS. WILSON referred Mr. Parker to the DOT letter of rebuttal, a
section of which she highlighted:
DOT agrees that the consideration of both costs and
benefits is useful and indeed appropriate for many,
but not all projects. What we consider inappropriate
isn't being mandatory on every new project regardless
of type, size or urgency. I would also point out that
cost and benefit consideration is used routinely
during project design even though it's not required by
state law. [In] AS 44.42.050 it's required for project
selection, but not during project design. But we still
do it.
The key point is that CB [cost benefit] analysis
should be used where it's meaningful and not
universally.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER said that's why the department doesn't object
to it being taken out of the statute.
MS. DEE ESSERT, Sand Lake CC, opposed SB 371. She said the cost
of Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (AMATS)
projects has escalated because engineers and project managers
fail to consider hidden costs of environmental impacts and other
problems. The Knowles Coastal Trail south extension has
increased from $12 million to $37 million. A recent cost
estimate was $80 million considering legal costs. The
legislature needs to shape the planning process by adding
statutes with objective criteria to the planning process.
MS. WILSON said that a required cost benefit analysis would
interfere with every project that DOT is running, including
those in construction phase, like the Soldotna Bridge project,
which has been completely halted.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY moved to pass CSSB 371(TRA) from committee with
individual recommendations and asked for unanimous consent.
There were no objections and it was so ordered. There being no
further business to come before the committee, Co-Chair Wagoner
adjourned the meeting at 3:20 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|