<<  <  >  >>

Plans should

of congestion? Some trade offs, such as peo-

planners might add different forms of land-

ple's time and energy, are easy because both

use regulation such as urban-growth bound-

be transparent,

can be valued, but others, such as fatalities,

aries, incentives for infill development, form-

that is, it should

will require more subjective judgment.

based zoning codes, and other rules designed

be clear to readers

Based on the tradeoffs, planners could

to change people's travel preferences.

design a preferred alternative that attempts to

For each project, planners should esti-

how planners

provide the best-possible balance of outputs

mate the cost to taxpayers, the cost to every-

developed their

for the fixed amount of funds that are avail-

one else, and the benefits in terms of the cri-

able. The alternative should also specify where

teria developed in the first step: for example,

preferred

it would make sense to spend more money if

the effects of the project on fatality rates,

alternative.

more became available through, say, a local tax

congestion, pollution, and energy consump-

increase or increased federal grants.

tion. Capital costs should be annualized by

After the plan is adopted, planners should

amortizing them over the life of each partic-

monitor to insure that the goals are being

ular project so that both benefits and costs

achieved. If possible, monitoring should

can be compared on an annual basis. Each of

include feedback mechanisms so that the plan

the benefits can then be divided into each

can self-correct if any of its assumptions prove

project's annual dollar cost to get cost per life

wrong. For example, if a particular project

saved; cost per hour of congestion relief; cost

turns out to cost much more than planners

per ton of air pollution relief; and cost per

originally projected, the plan could provide for

BTU of energy saved. The projects can then

the substitution of alternative projects that

be ranked using those criteria.

would be more cost effective.

For the actual alternatives, many planners

Each of these steps should include con-

might develop a transit-emphasis alternative,

sultation with the public to insure first, that

a highway-emphasis alternative, and so forth.

planners do not neglect any important crite-

But that would be unnecessarily polarizing. A

ria, potential transportation projects, or

better way is to build alternatives around

alternatives and second, that the tradeoffs

each of the major criteria: a maximum-safety

planners make in developing the preferred

alternative, a minimum-congestion alterna-

alternative meet public approval. Moreover,

tive, and so forth. The maximum-safety alter-

the plan should be transparent; that is, it

native would include all of the projects with

should be clear to any reader how planners

the highest safety rankings that the region

made each step along the way toward devel-

can afford with available funds. Thus, the

opment of their preferred alternative.

region might have four alternatives--safety,

In sum, a rational transportation plan

congestion, pollution, and energy--each of

should include the following:

which cost the same but which produce dif-

ferent levels of outputs and meet the criteria

· Quantitative

in different ways.

output criteria by which

At that point, planners could compare the

the plan can be judged;

·

projects and criteria to see which are comple-

State-of-the-art forecasts of travel needs

mentary and which conflict. For example, traf-

and travel behavior;

·

fic signal coordination can improve safety and

Sensitivity analyses for questionable

reduce congestion, pollution, and energy use.

assumptions;

·

But building a new highway might reduce

A list of all possible transportation pro-

congestion at a cost of consuming energy dur-

jects with projections of costs and bene-

ing construction. Planners could first ask: it is

fits, with the benefits firmly associated

possible to redesign the project so that it pro-

with each major criterion;

·

duces a net energy savings? If not, then plan-

Project rankings in terms of cost per

ners have to consider tradeoffs: how much

each criteria-related benefit;

·

energy are we willing to spend to save an hour

Several alternatives, consisting of vari-

8