Steve Ly - Comments

The ANPRM states that "FTA seeks public input on how to improve its calculation of ``cost effectiveness,'' including whether FTA should measure quantifiable benefits other than reduced travel time." I respond by reminding FTA that, due to excessive federal spending, the national debt is skyrocketing. Therefore, I oppose all efforts to dilute cost-effectiveness measures, preferring projects that get the most "bang for the buck" get funding priority with scarce taxpayer resources. With this poor economy, many transit systems around the country are being forced to cut service, therefore it makes no sense to build expensive new capital projects when agencies are unable to continue to operate what they already have. Therefore, I strongly urge FTA to tighten cost-effectiveness requirements so that bloated, "gold-plated" monuments to politician's egos do not get built at the expense of efficient projects that might actually benefit the public. To illustrate the point that I am attempting to make, I am attaching a report from a California community group that cites an example of a wasteful project and proposes a more cost-effective alternative.