guage about monitoring more to meet federal
since many present no other alternative, they
planning guidelines than because they
simply call the preferred alternative "the
believed monitoring was important or that it
plan" or the "fiscally constrained plan." Most
could lead to improvements in on-the-ground
plans included projections of the effects of
decisionmaking.
the plan on future transportation: conges-
tion, pollution, the share of travel using tran-
sit, and so forth. But without alternatives for
Substantive Problems with
comparison, members of the public have no
Transportation Plans
way of knowing whether the selected plan is
the best way deal with metropolitan trans-
portation issues.
Although less than 8 percent of Portland-
For example, as evidence that the draft Los
area commuters take transit to work, Portland,
Angeles metropolitan transportation plan is
Oregon, has become famous for its plans that
cost-effective, planners say that the projected
emphasize compact urban development and
benefits are slightly more than twice the
public transit over new highways. But in
expected costs.66 But this does not prove that a
January 2007, the Federal Highway Admini-
stration sent Metro, Portland's MPO, some
plan is cost effective. Suppose a plan consists
unusually critical comments about its draft
of three projects, each of which costs a dollar.
metropolitan transportation plan. Among the
One project produces $5 worth of benefits,
agency's comments:
one $0.75, and one $0.25. All three projects
together earn twice the benefits of their costs,
ˇ "It is difficult to find the transportation
but the second and third projects are not effi-
cient. Further, merely knowing the benefit-
focus" in the plan. "The current focus is
cost ratio of selected projects says nothing
about land use and attaining land use
about whether potential projects that were
goals through other means, specifically
rejected or not considered at all might have
by controlling transportation."
ˇ
produced even greater benefit-cost ratios. If
"The plan should allow for highway
the plan could have adopted projects that cost
expansion as a viable alternative. The
a dollar and returned $2, but adopted the pro-
transportation solution for a large and
jects that returned less than a dollar instead,
vibrant metropolitan region like Metro
then it is not cost effective.
should include additional highway
Transparency. Few of the plans are trans-
capacity options."
ˇ
parent to members of the public. How did
"The plan should acknowledge that
planners select the projects being considered
automobiles are the preferred mode of
in the plans? How did they select the projects
transport by the citizens of Portland--
they vote with their cars everyday."67
that would be funded under the proposed
plan? How did they weigh the relative impor-
tance of congestion relief, safety, pollution
The comments also criticized Portland's
abatement, land-use manipulation, or pro-
zoning codes that allow unusually narrow
"It is difficult
viding alternatives to the automobile? The
streets; the region's failure to do anything
to find the
plans provide few answers to these questions.
about high crime rates on its light-rail lines;
Monitoring and Feedback. Most of the
and street designs that require buses to block
transportation"
plans claim that the agencies will monitor
traffic instead of pulling into loading bays
in Portland's
implementation. However, few include many
when stopping for passengers. If nothing else,
transportation
details about how the monitoring process
the letter revealed that at least some trans-
would work, and none included any feedback
portation professionals in the U.S. Depart-
plan, said the
mechanisms or triggers that might require
ment of Transportation are not persuaded
Federal Highway
plan amendments or revisions. For the most
that behavioral solutions are the answer to
Administration.
part, it appeared that planners included lan-
Portland's transportation needs.
13