<<  <  >  >>

urban areas could not be bothered with

plan extends five more years into the future

answering these and other questions relating

than the previous plan, the 2025 plan is not a

real alternative.56

to plan performance.

For example, Albuquerque's plan notes

A few plans, such as one for Pittsburgh, con-

that, in 2005, 77.4 percent of commuters

sidered different "vision scenarios." Pitts-

drove alone to work and only 1.4 percent rode

burgh's included four visions: current trends,

transit. Their plan provides "extensive oppor-

dispersed development, compact development,

tunity for commuters to move away from the

and corridor/cluster development. These are all

`Drive Alone' category to other non-`SOV' [sin-

land-use alternatives, of course, not transporta-

gle-occupant vehicle] modes," including com-

tion alternatives. Whatever kind of alternatives

muter rail, bus-rapid transit, and bikeways.

they are, Pittsburgh planners made no effort to

However, they did not estimate how many

evaluate the transportation or other effects of

people would actually take advantage of such

each scenario. Instead, they settled on a pre-

opportunity. Opportunities, of course, are

ferred scenario and based their transportation

plan exclusively on that.57

inputs; actual use would be an output.

While Buffalo planners went to the trou-

Buffalo's 2025 transportation plan consid-

ble of identifying alternatives to its 2025

ered three alternatives. Alternative A empha-

Albuquerque's

plan, they failed to estimate the effects of

sized highway capacity improvements, B

plan provides

those alternatives.61 Moreover, Buffalo did

emphasized transit improvements, and C

emphasized investments that would promote

not include any alternatives in its more-

"extensive

recent 2030 plan.62

economic development. The proposed plan

opportunities"

called for equal investments in all three.58

For each of the alternatives in the Jack-

for alternatives to

sonville plan, planners estimated such things

In addition to a no-build alternative,

as number of hours of congestion delay, aver-

Jacksonville also considered highway empha-

driving but does

sis and transit emphasis alternatives.59

age rush-hour travel speeds, and numbers of

not bother to

transit riders for each of these alternatives

Salt Lake City offered three alternatives:

along with the selected plan.63 Jacksonville's

continuation of the previous plan; freeway

estimate whether

emphasis, and arterial emphasis. Despite the

plan was unusual in that it was written by out-

anyone will

names, however, the differences between the

side consultants rather than in-house plan-

take advantage

alternatives were actually very minor. All

ning staff; perhaps other MPOs should go

three alternatives included five light-rail and

that route.

of those

commuter-rail lines, as if those lines were not

For each of their alternatives, Salt Lake

opportunities.

in question. All also included several streetcar

City planners estimated such impacts as the

lines, though not necessarily on the same

number of hours of congestion delay, average

streets.60

commute speeds, tons of air pollution, and

many other effects.64 Curiously, they did not

Projections of Costs and Benefits. An impor-

tant step in the federally mandated planning

make a comparable evaluation for the pre-

process is insuring that the proposed plan is

ferred alternative. Though the plan devotes

feasible considering available financial

65 pages to the impacts of the selected plan

resources. So most plans estimated the costs

(compared with 17 pages for the three alter-

of the proposed plan. But many did not both-

natives, 16 pages of which describe methods

er to estimate the benefits or other effects of

and 1 page of which presents results), readers

the plan. Will the plan lead to more or less traf-

will search in vain to find total hours of con-

fic congestion? Will heavy investments in tran-

gestion delay, average commute speeds, tons

sit shift travel from automobiles? Will such

of air pollution, or many of the other impacts

estimated for the alternatives.65 That greatly

shifts reduce congestion and air pollution?

Planners for Boston, Ft. Lauderdale, Miami,

reduces the usefulness of the alternatives.

Minneapolis-St. Paul, San Diego, the San

Preferred Alternative. Every plan includes

Francisco Bay Area, and many other major

a preferred alternative, though, of course,

12