Skip to Content
Streetsblog USA home
Streetsblog USA home
Log In
Economics

Two Dems Propose to End Bush-Era Rule on Transit ‘Cost-Effectiveness’

New Starts, the main federal method for funding big-ticket transit projects, is considered sorely in need of a makeover by many in the capital.

20060724_ellison_2.jpgRep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) (Photo: MPR)

The program's high bureaucratic hurdles, shoddy record-keeping, and often glaringly low ridership predictions got dissed earlier this year by House transportation committee chairman Jim Oberstar, who joked that the program should be renamed "small starts, low starts, and no starts."

Two House Democrats attempted to start fixing the problem yesterday by offering a bill to end a much-criticized cost-effectiveness standard established by the Bush-era Federal Transit Administration (FTA).

The legislation, introduced by Reps. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Pete DeFazio (D-OR), would effectively revoke a 2005 FTA rule that withheld New Starts money from any transit project that failed to earn a "medium" or higher cost-effectiveness rating.

In practice, that rule helped push Dulles rail planners in Virginia into an above-ground track instead of a tunnel, delayed for years the introduction of Portland's streetcars, and forced California lawmakers to open their legislative bag of tricks in order to exempt a major San Francisco rail extension plan.

The Bush administration's FTA rule effectively compels cities to divide the total price tag of a transit project by the estimated time saved for transit users -- and if the result fails to meet a federal limit, no money is available. What proved particularly frustrating to many planners: cost-effectiveness technically accounts for a small share of the New Starts rating process, but it was treated as a primary basis for decision-making.

The Obama FTA recently proposed new weights for New Starts applications, setting cost-effectiveness at 20 percent, land use at 20 percent, mobility improvements at 20 percent, economic development at 20 percent, environmental benefits at 10 percent, operating efficiency at 10 percent.

In comments on that proposal, 18 out of 29 local planning agencies urged the new administration to scrap the "medium or higher" cost-effectiveness standard.

DeFazio chairs the House transportation committee's transit panel, but Oberstar himself -- who called for the elimination of the cost-effectiveness benchmark in January -- notably refrained from signing on.

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Streetsblog USA

Does Constant Driving Really Make Our Country Richer?

A new study reveals that constant driving is making America less productive and prosperous — and getting people on other modes could help right the ship.

July 1, 2025

‘We’re Not Copenhagen’ Is No Excuse Not to Build a Great Biking And Walking City

A team of researchers identified eight under-the-radar cities leading the local active transportation revolution — and a menu of strategies that other communities can and should steal.

June 30, 2025

Monday’s Headlines, Ranked

New reports rank the best cities for biking and the best complete streets policies. Plus, the robotaxi wars have begun.

June 30, 2025

Washington State Is About To Have the First Pro-‘Woonerf’ Law in America

Washington state is making it legal for cities to have people-centered streets in a first-in-the-nation law.

June 30, 2025

Friday’s Headlines Are Doomed

Philadelphia transit is falling off the fiscal cliff, with other major cities not far behind. And the effects of service cuts on their economies could be brutal.

June 27, 2025
See all posts