Politics and Technical Uncertainty in Transportation Investment Analysis

Cities often opt for rail transit even when agency evaluations conclude that other alternatives are superior in performance and efficiency. The choice of light rail transit (LRT) in Sacramento, California serves as a case study. When adjustments are made for overstated assumptions and irregular manipulations of data in the Sacramento evaluation, the LRT project is somewhat inferior on all technical grounds to other proposed alternatives. This article asks why a local decision was made to pursue the light rail option. The LRT choice is examined in the broader context of government structure and decision-making, earmarked state and federal funding, and local planning. It is shown that local decision makers have broad economic and social concerns that are not incorporated into standard technical evaluations, and that they are provided with highly uncertain projections, especially for ridership. Not surprisingly, local politicians were skeptical of the technical evaluations and weighed local values and strategic funding factors heavily in their decision. While we do not advocate porkbarreling, we believe that the choice of LRT, to the extent that it reflected legitimate local concerns, was valid. We suggest improvements in transit evaluation methods and observe that the 1984 changes in UMTA evaluation procedures appear to consider uncertainty correctly and to include local political support in a meaningful way.

[1]  Alan Altshuler,et al.  THE URBAN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. POLITICS AND POLICY INNOVATION , 1980 .

[2]  Eric J. Miller,et al.  URBAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING: A DECISION-ORIENTED APPROACH , 1984 .

[3]  A. Wildavsky,et al.  The Politics of the Budgetary Process. , 1965 .

[4]  Robert Cervero,et al.  Journal Report: Light Rail Transit and Urban Development , 1984 .

[5]  B. Pushkarev,et al.  Public Transportation and Land Use Policy , 1977 .

[6]  H. Simon,et al.  Models of Man. , 1957 .

[7]  R. L. Knight,et al.  LAND USE IMPACTS OF RAPID TRANSIT: IMPLICATIONS OF RECENT EXPERIENCE. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY , 1977 .

[8]  Nathaniel Lichfield,et al.  Evaluation in the planning process , 1975 .

[9]  B Pushkarev,et al.  URBAN RAIL IN AMERICA: AN EXPLORATION OF CRITERIA FOR FIXED-GUIDEWAY TRANSIT , 1980 .

[10]  M. Webber THE BART EXPERIENCE--WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED? , 1976 .

[11]  R. Likert,et al.  New Patterns of Management. , 1963 .

[12]  Rites of way , 1971 .

[13]  Norbert Krapf,et al.  MINUTES OF MEETING , 1938, The Guthrie Journal.

[14]  John W. Dickey,et al.  Metropolitan transportation planning , 1974 .

[15]  Vukan R Vuchic,et al.  Urban Public Transportation: Systems and Technology , 1981 .

[16]  K R MacCrimmon,et al.  Decisionmaking among Multiple-Attribute Alternatives: A Survey and Consolidated Approach , 1968 .

[17]  J. Sax The (Unhappy) Truth about NEPA , 1973 .

[18]  S. Edner The Evolution of an Urban Intergovernmental Transportation Decision System: Portlands Investment in Light Rail Transit , 1984 .

[19]  U. Regev,et al.  Optimal Staging Of Russian River Basin Development , 1975 .

[20]  Derek W. Bunn,et al.  Multiple Perspectives for Decision-Making , 1985 .

[21]  A. Hamer THE SELLING OF RAIL RAPID TRANSIT , 1976 .

[22]  Anthony C. Fisher Resource and environmental economics , 1981 .

[23]  Martin Wachs,et al.  Planning, organizations and decision-making: A research agenda , 1985 .

[24]  R. Cervero LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT , 1984 .

[25]  C A Lave,et al.  TRANSPORTATION AND ENERGY: SOME CURRENT MYTHS , 1977 .

[26]  J E Roberts,et al.  INTEGRATION OF SACRAMENTO LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT SYSTEM INTO THE CENTRAL CITY , 1985 .

[27]  Aaron Wildavsky The politics of mistrust , 1981 .