Wooten published another hack column today, pushing for the use of cost-benefit analysis in transportation planning. Anytime I’ve tried arguing my case against c-b analysis, I feel as though I’ve been met with dismissals. Does anyone realize the significance that c-b analysis carries on how our region is planned out, and just how shortsighted a tool this is?

The Atlanta Regional Commission already recognizes (PDF) that the operations and maintenance of our existing infrastructure represents 46% of the cost of the Mobility 2030 plan. That means 46% of the money that’s spent on improving our existing system will go toward what we already have. As more roads are built, that portion of the pie will grow, which means there will only be less monetary room to accomodate any further growth.

In other words, the more roads we build now, the less we can build later. The more roads we build now, the more we have to spend on maintenance. The more roads we build now, the less we have available later to build other options.

I sent a letter to the editor. We’ll see if it gets published (snicker, snicker). It went something like this:

The use of cost-benefit analysis as a tool for transportation planning would be just fine if it wasn’t so dishonest. When using this tool, our state and regional planners have not taken the total cost of the systems they have planned into account. By not building a better public transportation system, the total cost of transportation in our region is much higher, and most of it is pushed to the consumer level, where it can be hidden from the public discourse. A recent report has already acknowledged that driving in Atlanta is more expensive than anywhere else in the nation. How much more should our freedom of mobility be restricted before our state and regional leaders realize the importance of investing in a quality public transportation system?

We can do better.