tive measures they use to evaluate alterna-
ous collections of potential projects,
tives.
possibly one for each major criterion;
ˇ Estimates of the financial costs and the
As previously noted, such factors as hours
of congestion delay, tons of air pollution, or
transportation, environmental, and oth-
transport-related fatalities are all highly
er benefits of each alternative;
ˇ A preferred alternative that proposes a
quantifiable. But many plans include such
goals as:
list of projects in an attempt to balance
the various criteria;
ˇ Consultation with the public at key
ˇ Promote livable communities;33
ˇ Foster vibrant communities;34
stages along the way, with efforts to
ˇ Build community structure;35
make the planning process transparent
ˇ Provide environmental justice;36
so that reviewers can understand why
ˇ Provide a multimodal transportation
planners made their recommendations;
ˇ Monitoring to insure that the plan is
system;37
ˇ
Increase accessibility;38
working as intended with feedback mech-
ˇ
Create walkable districts;39
anisms that would add or subtract pro-
ˇ
Protect wetlands;40
jects if more money becomes available or
Nearly all of
ˇ
if certain assumptions prove wrong.
Preserve open space and agricultural
the plans
land;41
ˇ
Discourage urban sprawl;42
Actual Metropolitan Transportation
reviewed used an
ˇ
Plan for workforce housing;43
Plans
abbreviated
ˇ
To compare metropolitan transportation
Safeguard historical, cultural, and arche-
ological resources:44 and
planning model
planning with the standard rational plan-
ˇ
Support economic development.45
ning model, I read the most recent plans for
that failed to
more than 75 regions, including plans cover-
identify or evalu-
ing the 67 largest urban areas and several
Many of those goals, such as livable com-
smaller ones. None of the plans come close to
munities or community structure, are not
ate alternatives,
the rational process described above or even
quantifiable at all. Other goals are quantifi-
making it
the more basic process defined by the Bureau
able, but not in terms that are comparable to
impossible for
of Public Roads in 1963.
other goals. How many units of environmen-
No plan did sensitivity analyses of critical
tal justice are people willing to trade off for
people to know if
assumptions. None bothered to project poten-
more open-space protection? How many units
the plan was the
tial benefits or cost-effectiveness of projects
of workforce housing are people willing to
best way of
considered. All but a handful of plans failed to
trade off for safeguarding historical resources?
include any realistic alternatives, and many
How many units of economic development
achieving goals.
failed to project the effects of the proposed
are people willing to trade off for adding
plan on transportation. As a result, plans
another mode to their multimodal system?
lacked transparency: taxpayers and other read-
Given that most plans contain many of such
ers of most plans would have no idea how pro-
goals, there is no way to find an optimum
jects were selected, whether those projects or
plan. The resulting decisions are necessarily
the plans themselves were cost effective at
political, not rational.
meeting plan goals, or even, in many cases,
Some goals, such as accessibility and
whether the plans met any goals.
walkability, are really inputs, not outputs.
Criteria. Most metropolitan transporta-
Just because planners judge a neighborhood
tion plans include goals and objectives that
to be walkable doesn't mean that anyone is
serve as evaluation criteria. However, most of
actually walking. One plan defines accessibility
the criteria in most of the plans are qualita-
as "the number of opportunities (such as
tive. Even when the criteria are potentially
jobs, shopping, etc.) that can be reached from
quantifiable, planners rarely list the quantita-
a given location within a given amount of
9