While I think this touches on some good points I think it misses the forest for the trees a bit. The Federal policy shift must not be contained to transport, USDOT promotes heavily quantitative BCA analysis often based on Crash Modification Factors, CMF's, with very little research to back them up and road deaths are heavily stochastic meaning money is just directed at places where fatalities have occurred and then uses CMF's with questionable effectiveness. While I think its good to pour money into safety instead of congestion management through widening as a first step, a better step would be for the Federal Government to get back into the business of building dense urban housing to simultaneously combat the housing crisis, climate crisis, and reduce VMT per capita. HUD stopped building affordable housing in 1973 under the auspice of Tricky Dick Nixon. On the transport side speed needs to be reduced on streets, notable not on roads, and that should be done whether or not a BCA analysis says its good.
i appreciate this feedback and i think it makes some good points! i'd love to learn a little more about your perspective. one thing i'd like to respond to though:
>>On the transport side speed needs to be reduced on streets, notable not on roads, and that should be done whether or not a BCA analysis says its good.
i think i understand where you're coming from here, but one of the distinctions i'd hope to steer you toward is that the BCA isn't a binary decision point within our parameters -- it's more of a tool to help us prioritize which investments are a priority right now. A BCA output is one part of the whole story that includes building more density and modifying how we design our streets for safety and dignity.
My perspective is based more on administration of HSIP funds than it is BCA related to project level decisions. Crash data for fatalities, the majority of the benefit, is stochastic at the intersection level across a 5 year timespan and using that in conjunction with CMFs that sometimes have very little research to back them up leads to wonky and inefficient safety spending. The process is quanitative to a fault and the only reason it's run that way is to reduce TORT risk for Agencies. As an anecdote, one year most of the HSIP funding went to replacing signal heads to put up reflective backplates. I would much rather HSIP funding be administered at the system level. We know LPIs are a good so let's blanket the system with them, instead of there was a fatality here in the last 5 years so we can justify an LPI.
I won't speak for Sam, but I'll add my thoughts. The forest of this post is "traffic violence costs a fortune." I don't do deep dives on every CMF, but I have on many over the years. Some are backed by tons of research, esp those connecting to human factors (e.g. traffic calming measures like skinny lanes & roundabouts).
I'd argue housing still needs Federal intervention. Portland legalized middle housing and has only seen ~100 new units. Portland levied a tax in 2018 to build affordable housing, it's built 4000 units. The local estimate is that housing is 60000 units underbuilt.
While I think this touches on some good points I think it misses the forest for the trees a bit. The Federal policy shift must not be contained to transport, USDOT promotes heavily quantitative BCA analysis often based on Crash Modification Factors, CMF's, with very little research to back them up and road deaths are heavily stochastic meaning money is just directed at places where fatalities have occurred and then uses CMF's with questionable effectiveness. While I think its good to pour money into safety instead of congestion management through widening as a first step, a better step would be for the Federal Government to get back into the business of building dense urban housing to simultaneously combat the housing crisis, climate crisis, and reduce VMT per capita. HUD stopped building affordable housing in 1973 under the auspice of Tricky Dick Nixon. On the transport side speed needs to be reduced on streets, notable not on roads, and that should be done whether or not a BCA analysis says its good.
i appreciate this feedback and i think it makes some good points! i'd love to learn a little more about your perspective. one thing i'd like to respond to though:
>>On the transport side speed needs to be reduced on streets, notable not on roads, and that should be done whether or not a BCA analysis says its good.
i think i understand where you're coming from here, but one of the distinctions i'd hope to steer you toward is that the BCA isn't a binary decision point within our parameters -- it's more of a tool to help us prioritize which investments are a priority right now. A BCA output is one part of the whole story that includes building more density and modifying how we design our streets for safety and dignity.
My perspective is based more on administration of HSIP funds than it is BCA related to project level decisions. Crash data for fatalities, the majority of the benefit, is stochastic at the intersection level across a 5 year timespan and using that in conjunction with CMFs that sometimes have very little research to back them up leads to wonky and inefficient safety spending. The process is quanitative to a fault and the only reason it's run that way is to reduce TORT risk for Agencies. As an anecdote, one year most of the HSIP funding went to replacing signal heads to put up reflective backplates. I would much rather HSIP funding be administered at the system level. We know LPIs are a good so let's blanket the system with them, instead of there was a fatality here in the last 5 years so we can justify an LPI.
I won't speak for Sam, but I'll add my thoughts. The forest of this post is "traffic violence costs a fortune." I don't do deep dives on every CMF, but I have on many over the years. Some are backed by tons of research, esp those connecting to human factors (e.g. traffic calming measures like skinny lanes & roundabouts).
On the housing side, the excellent news is that it's a locally fixable problem. City & county admins outlaw affordable & middle housing. https://speakeasy.substack.com/p/zoning-makes-the-housing-go-missing
I'd argue housing still needs Federal intervention. Portland legalized middle housing and has only seen ~100 new units. Portland levied a tax in 2018 to build affordable housing, it's built 4000 units. The local estimate is that housing is 60000 units underbuilt.