<<  <  >  >>

Of the more than

cost transportation improvements that would

when low-cost solutions (such improve-

serve low-income neighborhoods.54 Perhaps

ments to bus transit) would work just as well.

70 plans reviewed

For example, the Ft. Collins plan used an

not surprisingly, the MTC published no com-

here, only two

elaborate scoring system to rank projects with-

parable report for its more recent 2030 plan.

included real

in several categories--highway, transit, bike/

Alternatives. The biggest gap in metropoli-

pedestrian, and so forth. When it came time to

tan transportation planning is the lack of

alternatives and

select from the high-ranking projects among

alternatives. Of the more than 70 plans

evaluated the

those categories, the MPO essentially punted,

reviewed, only two--those for Jacksonville and

saying it would "spend the resources that have

Salt Lake City--included real alternatives and

effects of those

been allocated to each project category at an

evaluated the effects of those alternatives.

alternatives.

equal rate."52 In other words, if funding was

Some plans considered no alternatives at

all to the proposal. That makes it appear that

available for only half of all projects, it would

the proposed plans are completely arbitrary

fund half (by dollar value) of each category's

or that they are based on some hidden (or

projects. This, of course, would motivate the

not-so-hidden) agendas and that planners do

various agencies to make their project lists as

not want to reveal to the public how badly

long as possible.

the plans perform compared to other alter-

Transportation planning models allow

natives.

planners to estimate the effects of individual

Many plans include a "no-build" alterna-

projects on congestion and other outputs. Yet

tive, meaning no new capital improvements

no plans listed any such effects, other than

after ones that are already in progress are fin-

financial costs, for their projects. In one case,

ished. Planners usually project a huge

an MPO assessed the effects of individual pro-

increase in congestion under this alternative,

jects on congestion, but did not include its

which allows them to say that the preferred

assessment in the plan itself. For its 2025 long-

alternative "reduces" congestion--when in

range plan, the San Francisco Metropolitan

fact it merely increases it by a smaller amount

Transportation Commission published a sep-

than the no-build plan. In Austin, Texas,

arate "evaluation report" which listed dozens

of highway and transit projects.53 The report

where more than 90 percent of commuters

drive to work, planners predict that no-build

included one set of tables listing the cost of

will increase the amount of time people

each project and a separate set of tables esti-

waste in traffic by more than 100 times, but

mating the number of hours of congestion

under the proposed plan, it will increase by

relief each project would provide.

"only" four times.55 Since no other alterna-

Unlike the plan itself, the report was not

available for download on the Internet. But

tives were evaluated, people have no way to

those people who obtained copies of the

know whether some other plan could have

report could calculate the cost per delay hour

prevented such an increase.

and rank projects by this measure. There is

Some plans, including Portland's, add a

no evidence that the MTC ever made that cal-

"priority" or "needs" alternative, which could

culation itself. Its plan proposed to fund sev-

also be called the "wish-list" alternative, as it

eral projects that had the highest costs per

includes all of the projects submitted to the

delay hour saved while it did not fund many

MPO by the various transportation agencies

projects with much lower costs per hour, so it

in the region. Since the total cost of all pro-

is clear that the MTC did not consider this to

jects is, in some cases, many times the total

be an important criterion.

amount of funds available, the needs alterna-

This MTC report has been used by low-

tive, like no-build, is not a realistic option.

income advocates in a discrimination lawsuit

The 2030 plan for Sacramento included

against the MTC charging that it is building

the 2025 plan as an "alternative" to the pro-

expensive transportation facilities for high-

posed plan. Since part of the 2025 plan has

income neighborhoods while neglecting low-

already been accomplished and the 2030

11