The recent debates over the federal transit budget have obscuredthe intent and nature of umta's major investment rating approach. The rating approach is the logical conclusion of a project development process that has evolved over the last 15 years, was enunciated inumta's may 1984 notice of major investment policy, and responds to the mandate of section 303 of the surface transportation and uniformrelocation assistance act of 1987 (sturaa). The development processis, therefore, well known and is only briefly discussed. The ratingsystem, on the other hand, is covered in some detail. A number of case studies are presented to illustrate how the investment rating system developed by umta has worked. These case studies are divided into two groups: those projects that were highly rated as potential federal transit investments and those that did not fare well. There are features common to each type of project that tend to be the cause of their respective good or bad ratings, and these are highlighted in the paper's conclusion. One common feature of the highly rated projects is that they are generally a critical piece of a much larger system, meaning that a relatively modest investment can be leveraged to produce tremendous benefits. Another feature is that nowhere nearthe same level of benefits could be produced by a more modest investment. A final positive feature of the highly rated projects is thatthey are backed by a strong local financial commitment to transit, not only in terms of the proposed project's initial capital costs, but also in terms of long-term operations and maintenance for the transit system as a whole. The common features of the poorly rated projects are their inability to generate significant new transit ridership despite large incremental investments and the precarious financial condition of transit in the respective communities. This paper appears in transportation research record no. 1209, Transit administration and planning research.
Abstract