Policies and Practices for Cost-Effective Transit Investments: Recent Experiences in the United States

Abstract

A structured survey of transit agency staff and interviews with agency executives and other local leaders were conducted in areas that have undertaken a major transit investment project in the past 5 years. The purpose was to identify methods and procedures used to evaluate and select projects and, in particular, to document how land use considerations are being incorporated into project decisions. Staff members responsible for 41 projects were contacted, and 28 completed the survey, discussing projects in 23 regions of the United States. Supplementary interviews were conducted for 10 of the regions. The study found that most agencies use federal guidance and regulations on the evaluation of transit investment as a starting point, but give equal weight in project design and selection to state and local policy objectives such as social equity, economic development, and fair-share distribution of projects among local communities. A number of transit agencies give priority to projects in jurisdictions with transit-supportive land use patterns or plans. The availability of public or private funding contributions is increasingly important in prioritizing projects. Increasingly, transit agencies are hiring staff to work with local governments on land use planning and on funding partnerships and are working with them to develop a shared understanding of the area’s transit needs and related development objectives. Staff and political leaders deem these efforts at least as important as technical evaluations of cost-effectiveness.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Black

The Recent Popularity of Light Rail Transit in North America. Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1993, pp. 150–159.

Euritt

M. A.

, Hoffman

M. A.

, and Walton

C. M.

. Conceptual Model of the Fixed-Guideway Decision Process. In Transportation Research Record 1266, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1990, pp. 52–162.

Lowe

Shaping Cities. In State of the World ( Brown

, ed.), Norton, New York, 1992.

Gomez-Ibanez

J.-A.

Transportation Policy as a Tool for Shaping Metropolitan Development. Department of City and Regional Planning, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., 1978.

Gordon

, and Richardson

. Notes from Underground: The Failure of Urban Mass Transit. Public Interest, Vol. 94, 1990, pp. 77–86.

Pickrell

D. H.

A Desire Named Streetcar: Fantasy and Fact in Rail Transit Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 58, No. 2, 1992, pp. 158–176.

Lee

Transit Cost and Performance Measurement. Transportation, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1989, pp. 47–70.

Viton

P. A.

Once Again, the Costs of Urban Rapid Transit. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 27b, No. 5, 1993, pp. 401–412.

Jones

D. W.

Urban Transit Policy: An Economic and Political History. Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1985.

10.

Pushkarev

, and Zupan

J. M.

. Public Transportation and Land Use Policy. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1977.

11.

Cervero

Light Rail Transit and Urban Development. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 50, No. 4, 1984, pp. 133–147.

12.

Giuliano

The Weakening Transportation–Land Use Connection. Access, University of California Transportation Center, Berkeley, 1995, pp. 3–11.

13.

Pucher

Equity in Transit Finance: Distribution of Transit Subsidy Benefits and Costs Among Income Classes. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 35, No. 4, 1981, pp. 541–556.

14.

Harvey

, and Deakin

. Air Quality and Transportation Planning: An Assessment of Recent Developments. In Transportation and Air Quality, Research Paper No. 5, Searching for Solutions: A Policy Discussion Series, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1992.

15.

Benjamin

, and Obeng

. The Effect of Policy and Background Variables on Total Factor Productivity for Public Transit. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 24B, No. 1, 1990, pp. 1–14.

16.

Fielding

Effective Budgeting and Financing for Public Transit: Managing Public Transit Strategically. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif, 1987.

17.

Lave

C. A.

(ed.) Urban Transit: The Private Challenge to Public Transportation. Pacific Institute for Public Policy Research, Ballinger Publishing Co., Cambridge, Mass., 1985.

18.

Teal

Public Transit Service Contracting: A Status Report. Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 2, 1988, pp. 181–207.

19.

Knight

R. L.

, and Trygg

Evidence of Land Use Impacts of Rapid Transit Systems. Transportation, Vol. 6, No. 3, 1977, pp. 231–247.

20.

Handy

Understanding Link Between Urban Form and Travel Behavior. Presented at the 74th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., Jan. 1995.

21.

Callies

Value Capture Techniques: The State of the Art. Transit Law Review, Vol. 2, Summer, 1979, pp. 24–32.

22.

Calthorpe

The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream. Princeton Architectural Press, Princeton, N.J., 1993.

23.

Bernick

, and Cervero

. Transit Villages in the 21st Century. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1997.

24.

Bragado

N. S.

Transit Joint Development in San Diego: Policies and Practices. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1669, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 22–29.