Probably the best part of the report is the graphic explaining the TSUB process (AKA cost effectiveness). It's so freakin complicated but this is at least better than all that jargon.
But if you still want the jargon, there's plenty in the report. Here is a slap in the face though:
According to FTA, such transit user benefits are the distinct and primary benefit of transit investments. Most other benefits of transit projects, such as economic development, are considered secondary benefits because they are still directly related to mobility improvements. For example, transportation investments that improve the accessibility and attractiveness of certain locations can result in higher property values in those areas, which can affect the type and density of development that occurs in the area of the investment.I personally don't think its inappropriate at all. The reason being is that the type of development that happens near transit has other benefits that don't have to do with the mobility that happens with the transit itself. There's the energy efficient buildings benefit, the infrastructure cost reduction benefit, transportation cost savings from less driving due to walkability, pollution reductions from less driving due to walkability etc etc etc. I don't think that is counted in mobility or the cost-effectiveness measure, yet they are true benefits of transit investments.
The transportation literature and different experts we consulted agreed that such increases in property values are generally the result of mobility improvements. As such, they noted that conducting a separate evaluation of secondary benefits, such as economic development, may be inappropriate because it can result in double counting certain project impacts.
A lot of people including some "experts" continue to have their head in the sand on this issue. A particular quote on page 46 will make some of you laugh, or perhaps cry.
One expert in particular said that FTA should retain its primary focus on funding projects that improve mobility and not on those designed to change the structure of cities.Seriously? Because mobility problems of today have NOTHING to do with the awful structure of our cities. I'm sure that person doesn't mind that big freeway social engineering experiment that has been happening since the 1950's.