Obama officials say want "rigor" in project evaluation (COMMENTARY)

US undersecretary for transportation policy Roy Kienitz is saying that the Obama administration wants to see more rigorous "project evaluation" and "investment performance assessment" of new highway projects financed with US taxes. He has obviously been leading a sheltered life in central Pennsylvania. Anyone around here could tell him that the US Congress already has a well honed and extremely rigorous Project Evaluation Process (PEP).

The federal PEP goes like this: your local congressman familiarizes himself/herself (themself) with various projects being pushed in his/her (their) district by local planners, the DOT, lobbyists etc

The congressperson and staff rigorously evaluate the potential payoffs and paybacks of the different projects.

Payoffs are measured in two different currencies - votes come next election, and campaign contributions.

Paybacks are withdrawals of support, and money to a rival.

Criteria are: Who supports the project, who opposes it?

Is it in a marginal district, or a safe area?

Are there local firms who see it as work?

Are there groups who see the project as destructive to their goals or interests?

Who's stronger there - the chamber of commerce/AAA or the environuts/NIMBYs?

Which side is local TV/newspaper going to be on?

Who can we hit up for campaign contributions if we put it on our list of Urgently Needed Projects?

This is the rigorous assessment of highway (and transit) projects that is well established in Washington DC. It is most unlikely to change given the politics of distributing taxpayer funds.

Now if the Obama crew were serious about change...

Now if the Obama crew were serious about actually changing the way project evaluation is conducted the new surface transportation authorization act would require every project advanced for federal support to come equipped with:

1.  traffic and revenue study/finance plan attached showing optimal levels of tolls/fares/fees that would support capital and operating costs and eliminate, or minimize, the need for taxpayer support

2. external benefits/costs report quantifying any net benefit so as to justify federal support

These two simple requirements would allow financial and economic impacts of projects to be treated as seriously as we presently treat environmental impacts in the NEPA process.

Until some serious financial/economic analysis of road and transit projects is required by US law, then project evaluation will remain - to put it most politely - parochially political, regardless of the best intentions of the Obama crew.

editor TOLLROADSnews 2009-07-02