by Alex Marshall, Editor, Spotlight on the Region
Here in the tri-state region we often feel neglected because while we heavily utilize mass transit, the rest of the nation doesn't.
Our usual response has been to wave our hands at federal authorities saying, "pay more attention to rail, pay more attention to buses," with the word "pay" having both literal and figurative meanings. It's an understandable response.
But perhaps a more effective and insightful response would be to ask top transportation officials to pay less attention to all modes of travel - water, rail, roads and air -and pay more attention to the results we seek from them.
Such an approach is called "mode neutral," and it's catching on in advanced transportation circles, even though it breaks with centuries of tradition.
After all, most of us are very tied to our "modes." Transportation debates often end up as partisan food fights, with lovers of particular means of getting around hurling insults and accusations at each other in the form of selected statistics. At the federal level, funding streams and departments are divided by mode - rail, highway, aviation, for example, making it difficult to plan and finance truly multi-modal projects. And these funding streams are not mode neutral.
While Federal New Starts transit projects must meet stringent performance criteria related to performance, cost benefit, etc., federal funding for highways flows freely to state highway departments based on the number of road miles in the state. When was the last time a federal-funded highway got subjected to performance- or cost-effectiveness-based testing? As RPA's Jeffrey Zupan speaks of in his recent study, "New Starts, New Directions" for the Eno Foundation, now "decisions on highway expansion projects are not required to be based on rigorous criteria." That's not the case with transit projects. Wouldn't it make more sense to hold all transportation modes accountable to a set of performance criteria that support the goals we are seeking from our transportation program?
Late last year, Great Britain's department of transportation released the voluminous "Eddington Transport Study." It was a comprehensive evaluation of the country's transportation needs and priorities. The study was led by Sir Rod Eddington, a recently knighted Australian who was once the head of British Airways. The four-volume report, which is available online at www.dft.gov.uk/about/strategy/eddingtonstudy, is an example of the United Kingdom's recent spurt of research-based policy development, the excellent Stern report on climate change being another one.
The study attempts to address many questions about transportation policy, most too detailed to get into here. But the general way the Brits approach the topic is worth mentioning. Rather than dividing the report into, say, air, road, water and train travel, and then addressing what is right or wrong with each sector, they start the report with specific problems to be solved, and only then look at what particular mode or modes of travel would accomplish that.
"Different modes will be best placed to achieve different economic, social and environmental goals in different circumstances," says the report in one typical passage. "Choice of mode should therefore be a second-order issue centred on the selection of the best solution and not a predetermined policy decision."
In other words, the study attempts to be "modally agnostic," to use a wonderful phrase from a new Brookings Institution report that cites the Eddington Study. "Transportation policy and program governance currently favors particular modes but is indifferent to substantive outcomes," says the Brookings report, "A Blueprint for American Prosperity." "We propose the reverse: a single minded focus on achieving the declared national priorities and indifference to the modal means of achieving them."
This is one of the goals for transportation policy that RPA is pursuing though its America 2050 initiative, which is developing recommendations for the next transportation bill, likely to be reauthorized in 2009. A collection of policy papers for transportation were recently published in RPA's summary of "The National Roundtable on Surface Transportation," which can be downloaded from the America 2050 website here.
The point of all this is to tie transportation spending, whether by local, state or federal government, to an actual problem to be solved, or types of places to be created. We shouldn't be indiscriminately building stuff for the sake of adding to our infrastructure. A friend of mine who is smart about such things says it's good to remember that Black & Decker isn't in the business of selling drills. It's in the business of selling holes.
We need to keep that anecdote in mind with transportation. Our job is to provide access to goods and services, and to create places around those means of access. And while most of us will always love one "mode" more than another, perhaps it's time to leave our modes behind, at least when crafting policy.
Here in the tri-state region we often feel neglected because while we heavily utilize mass transit, the rest of the nation doesn't.
Our usual response has been to wave our hands at federal authorities saying, "pay more attention to rail, pay more attention to buses," with the word "pay" having both literal and figurative meanings. It's an understandable response.
But perhaps a more effective and insightful response would be to ask top transportation officials to pay less attention to all modes of travel - water, rail, roads and air -and pay more attention to the results we seek from them.
Such an approach is called "mode neutral," and it's catching on in advanced transportation circles, even though it breaks with centuries of tradition.
After all, most of us are very tied to our "modes." Transportation debates often end up as partisan food fights, with lovers of particular means of getting around hurling insults and accusations at each other in the form of selected statistics. At the federal level, funding streams and departments are divided by mode - rail, highway, aviation, for example, making it difficult to plan and finance truly multi-modal projects. And these funding streams are not mode neutral.
While Federal New Starts transit projects must meet stringent performance criteria related to performance, cost benefit, etc., federal funding for highways flows freely to state highway departments based on the number of road miles in the state. When was the last time a federal-funded highway got subjected to performance- or cost-effectiveness-based testing? As RPA's Jeffrey Zupan speaks of in his recent study, "New Starts, New Directions" for the Eno Foundation, now "decisions on highway expansion projects are not required to be based on rigorous criteria." That's not the case with transit projects. Wouldn't it make more sense to hold all transportation modes accountable to a set of performance criteria that support the goals we are seeking from our transportation program?
Late last year, Great Britain's department of transportation released the voluminous "Eddington Transport Study." It was a comprehensive evaluation of the country's transportation needs and priorities. The study was led by Sir Rod Eddington, a recently knighted Australian who was once the head of British Airways. The four-volume report, which is available online at www.dft.gov.uk/about/strategy/eddingtonstudy, is an example of the United Kingdom's recent spurt of research-based policy development, the excellent Stern report on climate change being another one.
The study attempts to address many questions about transportation policy, most too detailed to get into here. But the general way the Brits approach the topic is worth mentioning. Rather than dividing the report into, say, air, road, water and train travel, and then addressing what is right or wrong with each sector, they start the report with specific problems to be solved, and only then look at what particular mode or modes of travel would accomplish that.
"Different modes will be best placed to achieve different economic, social and environmental goals in different circumstances," says the report in one typical passage. "Choice of mode should therefore be a second-order issue centred on the selection of the best solution and not a predetermined policy decision."
In other words, the study attempts to be "modally agnostic," to use a wonderful phrase from a new Brookings Institution report that cites the Eddington Study. "Transportation policy and program governance currently favors particular modes but is indifferent to substantive outcomes," says the Brookings report, "A Blueprint for American Prosperity." "We propose the reverse: a single minded focus on achieving the declared national priorities and indifference to the modal means of achieving them."
This is one of the goals for transportation policy that RPA is pursuing though its America 2050 initiative, which is developing recommendations for the next transportation bill, likely to be reauthorized in 2009. A collection of policy papers for transportation were recently published in RPA's summary of "The National Roundtable on Surface Transportation," which can be downloaded from the America 2050 website here.
The point of all this is to tie transportation spending, whether by local, state or federal government, to an actual problem to be solved, or types of places to be created. We shouldn't be indiscriminately building stuff for the sake of adding to our infrastructure. A friend of mine who is smart about such things says it's good to remember that Black & Decker isn't in the business of selling drills. It's in the business of selling holes.
We need to keep that anecdote in mind with transportation. Our job is to provide access to goods and services, and to create places around those means of access. And while most of us will always love one "mode" more than another, perhaps it's time to leave our modes behind, at least when crafting policy.
@RegionalPlan
Leave a comment