The USA has dramatically altered the way in which it assesses which transportation projects should be funded, their equivalent of our cost-benefit analysis. The big shift is that impacts on overall urban form and “livability” need to be taken into greater consideration – rather than just simple “time savings”.
Here are the full details, courtesy of humantransit.org:
Obama Administration Proposes Major Public Transportation Policy Shift to Highlight Livability Changes Include Economic Development and Environmental Benefits
In a dramatic change from existing policy, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today proposed that new funding guidelines for major transit projects be based on livability issues such as economic development opportunities and environmental benefits, in addition to cost and time saved, which are currently the primary criteria.
In remarks at the Transportation Research Board annual meeting, the Secretary announced the Obama Administration’s plans to change how projects are selected to receive federal financial assistance in the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) New Starts and Small Starts programs. As part of this initiative, the FTA will immediately rescind budget restrictions issued by the Bush Administration in March of 2005 that focused primarily on how much a project shortened commute times in comparison to its cost.
“Our new policy for selecting major transit projects will work to promote livability rather than hinder it,” said Secretary LaHood. “We want to base our decisions on how much transit helps the environment, how much it improves development opportunities and how it makes our communities better places to live.”
The change will apply to how the Federal Transit Administration evaluates major transit projects going forward. In making funding decisions, the FTA will now evaluate the environmental, community and economic development benefits provided by transit projects, as well as the congestion relief benefits from such projects.
“This new approach will help us do a much better job of aligning our priorities and values with our transit investments” said FTA Administrator Peter Rogoff. “No longer will we ignore the many benefits that accrue to our environment and our communities when we build or expand rail and bus rapid transit systems.”
FTA will soon initiate a separate rulemaking process, inviting public comment on ways to appropriately measure all the benefits that result from such investments.
I wonder if/when New Zealand will join the 21st century and do the same?
Processing...
I think that this will start with the councils but it will probably take some time to flow through to the government. On the more positive side it definitely seems like the public is becoming more aware of how infrastructure affects them and the environment.
Yes it’s good to see that there is a growing awareness of how interconnected transportation and urban form is. It is NZTA who are the ones who need to change the way they undertake cost-benefit analyses of projects.
Some environmental considerations, like effects on CO2 emissions, are calculated (although because induced traffic is ignored I don’t have much faith in the calculations), but apart from that I don’t think that broader considerations are given adequate analysis – in particular effects on livability. They’re all simply “managed” at the consenting process, by which time the big decisions have been made, and the arguments are all about mitigation.
National’s transport planners are dinosaurs from the 50’s who’ll never change their thinking. They all think Obama is a left wing idiot so are hardly likely to take any notice of what he is proposing.
Thanks for the link, Joshua. Commentary is not all enthusiastic, though, as in my brief post and especially the first few comments on it:
http://www.humantransit.org/2010/01/big-news-on-us-federal-transit-funding.html
@Jarret – it’s funny how the posters feel that ‘time savings’ is the only true measure that should warrant whether a project should go ahead. Love it when the road lobbyist start realise the tide is turning and leap out to defend their outdated measures of worth.
I think it is symptomatic of the battle between planners and engineers over whose thinking should drive transport matters.
Engineers love the clear “black and white” nature of time-savings benefits (which is why they hate the concept of induced demand), yet become fearful of the grey ‘warm fuzzy’ concepts like improving livability and contributing to better urban outcomes. Those matters are undoubtedly hard to measure, but they are also essential. We spent most of the 20th century (particularly post WW2) destroying our cities through tansport decisions, so it is obvious that the link between transport and livability is strong.
As a planner myself, I like to embrace the grey areas and their complexity. We may not ever be able to fully calculate the effect of something on broad issues like “livability”, but it should be obvious what transport decisions will improve it, and what will degrade it.
Transport engineers can say what they like, the public will ahve the final say. October’s elections will be interesting for this reason.
Increasingly I see this debate becoming generational. Not only do I not want to live in the motorway/suburban sprawl of my parents generation, I also don’t want to pay for it.
The public will have the final say on the mayor, who in turn will have no effect on transport under the Model being pushed through…
I think the tide is changing in the US, it why there was the three previous posts entitled, “Is NZ falling behind the US”, this is more evidence for the shift… It means with England having changed it’s BCR analysis and now the US we will too (in about 20 years)…
Yes that’s the sad thing about these reforms, if the Mayor and council really have no power in so many of these important issues people will soon realise that it’s a waste of time even voting or taking note of local body politics. We’ll quickly go back to the current situation at the ACC which consists of a bunch of washed up former politicans and list-MP wannabes running the show to the detriment of all of us.
Interesting article from The Guardian Weekly about the decline of car sales in the US.
http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm228/rytc1980/End_of_the_love_affair.jpg