Comments on: Federally funding for transit projects now to consider “livability”, analysis no longer dominated by cost-effectiveness http://netdensity.net/2010/01/25/746/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=federally-funding-for-transit-projects-now-to-consider-livability-analysis-no-longer-dominated-by-cost-effectiveness Urban planning, sustainability and technology Wed, 02 May 2012 14:54:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Net Density » Could new FTA “livability” funding rules change Southwest LRT route? http://netdensity.net/2010/01/25/746/comment-page-1/#comment-20466 Net Density » Could new FTA “livability” funding rules change Southwest LRT route? Sat, 30 Jan 2010 20:18:24 +0000 http://netdensity.net/?p=746#comment-20466 [...] the sole focus on cost-effectiveness from travel time savings to include broader goals of “livability“.  With the three new stations, the project would not have met a “medium” rating [...] [...] the sole focus on cost-effectiveness from travel time savings to include broader goals of “livability“.  With the three new stations, the project would not have met a “medium” rating [...]

]]> By: Brendon http://netdensity.net/2010/01/25/746/comment-page-1/#comment-20415 Brendon Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:32:38 +0000 http://netdensity.net/?p=746#comment-20415 My hope is that the FTA does come up with an objective formula for measuring indicators of "livability". I perhaps would have chosen a different word to describe economic and environmental impacts of transit projects, but I, alas, am not in charge. However, <a href="http://www.fta.dot.gov/about/about_FTA_11065.html" rel="nofollow">it doesn't appear</a> that they are tossing the cost-effectiveness rating, just making it one of many factors that they project is judged by. Projects will now have to receive an overall rating of medium, not just a CEI rating of medium. I share your concerns, but remain optimistic (at least until we see the results). My hope is that the FTA does come up with an objective formula for measuring indicators of “livability”. I perhaps would have chosen a different word to describe economic and environmental impacts of transit projects, but I, alas, am not in charge.

However, it doesn’t appear that they are tossing the cost-effectiveness rating, just making it one of many factors that they project is judged by. Projects will now have to receive an overall rating of medium, not just a CEI rating of medium. I share your concerns, but remain optimistic (at least until we see the results).

]]> By: Chaz http://netdensity.net/2010/01/25/746/comment-page-1/#comment-20394 Chaz Fri, 29 Jan 2010 03:12:52 +0000 http://netdensity.net/?p=746#comment-20394 My fear is that less objective "livability" measures will make the New Starts process a beauty/popularity contest. In any beauty contest, don't bet on the contestant from the Midwest. Transit System User Benefits are probably too narrow, but I like the idea of a cost effectiveness floor for billion-dollar federal projects. Maybe instead of tossing it for fluff, we could either: 1. Increase the components of the denominator to reward denser, better areas, and/or 2. Increase funding so that CEI scores can be $40 or $50 and still "pass", not $25 or $30. My fear is that less objective “livability” measures will make the New Starts process a beauty/popularity contest. In any beauty contest, don’t bet on the contestant from the Midwest.

Transit System User Benefits are probably too narrow, but I like the idea of a cost effectiveness floor for billion-dollar federal projects. Maybe instead of tossing it for fluff, we could either:
1. Increase the components of the denominator to reward denser, better areas, and/or
2. Increase funding so that CEI scores can be $40 or $50 and still “pass”, not $25 or $30.

]]>