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

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

4:37 PM EST on December 17, 2009

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

Monday’s Headlines Like Stadiums Without Parking

The lack of parking at Kansas City's new soccer stadium is a feature, not a bug. Plus other news.

February 26, 2024

Should Communities That Suppress Housing Lose Their Road Funding?

A Colorado bill would require sprawling cities to take action to increase their affordable housing supply before they collect money to build more roads — and some want to take it national.

February 26, 2024

Why ‘Safe Systems’ Are Not Enough to End Road Violence

Two years into the National Roadway Safety Strategy, why hasn't America made more progress towards Vision Zero?

February 26, 2024

Friday’s Headlines Are So Fresh and So Clean

The only thing Americans love more than a car is a clean car.

February 23, 2024

CalBike: Tell the Legislature Hands Off Active Transportation Funding

Calbike has an action alert that allows its members to write directly to legislators with their feelings on whether or not the ATP funding should be restored before the legislature votes on the budget in June.

February 22, 2024
See all posts