That headline may sound like a perfect storm of vague and bloodless words, but its meaning is actually pretty forceful.
I'm looking for examples of policies, often at the level of planning authorities spanning an urban region, that state expected performance outcomes for major investments. These policies frame the big infrastructure decisions as investments, which implies some risk but also some sense of expected level of return. The return doesn't have to be to the transit agency's budget, though it certainly can be. It could also be a return to the tax base or development goals of the city served.
The purpose of such policies is to push back against purely political impulses in prioritization, including all the many aspects of parochialism that are inseparable from representative democracy. The policy is polite, but behind the politeness it basically says: We can't focus on how worthy or victimized or generous your suburb or community or electoral district is, nor do we care what our grandparents promised to your grandparents. We as a regional infrastructure agency care about outcomes for our region, and we will not make investments that look unlikely to deliver those outcomes.
In my case, I'm interested in major transport infrastructure investments, both highway and transit.
These policies are in early stages of being invented in most of the agencies I'm familiar with, but I want to make sure I'm not missing any inspirational leadership in this area. Anyone with knowledge of such policies in any urban area, please inform me of them, either in comments or with the email button under my photo. —>