IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Learning from Experiments: An Evaluation Plan for CMAQ Projects

  • Krupnick, Alan

    ()

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Harrington, Winston

    ()

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Farrell, Deirdre

The Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality Program (CMAQ), established in 1991 by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) to provide about $1 billion per year to fund transportation projects that improve air quality, is intended both to support traditional transportation control measures and to encourage innovation in developing new strategies and technologies for controlling emissions from transportation sources. While the program has indeed encouraged some innovative approaches to local transportation and air quality problems, critics see it as a diversion of funds that could more usefully be devoted to conventional highway improvement projects. The current debate in Congress over the reauthorization of ISTEA and, specifically, the CMAQ provisions, is hampered by the lack of detailed information about the achievements of previous CMAQ projects and a plan for evaluating future projects. Resolution of this debate could be aided by emphasizing the role of CMAQ projects as natural experiments and developing a plan to conduct them. The purpose of this paper is to outline a strategy of analysis and data collection that will facilitate evaluation of CMAQ projects. This paper argues that the lack of emphasis (in all but the largest projects) on project evaluation can be explained by the public goods nature of information. Because local implementing agencies bear the costs of evaluation, while the benefits are enjoyed primarily by other jurisdictions in planning their transportation and environment projects, too little evaluation is conducted. At present, much of the potential usefulness of CMAQ projects to planners is dissipated because there is little systematic learning. Indeed, a project could succeed as an experiment if learning took place, even if it failed to improve air quality. This paper examines the kinds of data collected now in CMAQ programs in comparison with the kinds of data that would permit more effective program evaluation, particularly ex post evaluation, i.e., analysis of what actually resulted from the implementation of the individual project. In many cases, data-gathering should concentrate on observable outcomes that can clearly be attributed to the project and yet bear some relationship to air quality or congestion, either established by previous empirical study or by model results. A method is proposed for collecting the requisite data for each of several important types of CMAQ projects. To assure that the data are collected and evaluated will also require changes in the way in which CMAQ is administered, including the dedication of some portion of CMAQ funds for evaluating completed projects. The biggest change may be the need to develop measures of "success" and identify "control cases" against which to judge the success of the experiment.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-98-18.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Resources For the Future in its series Discussion Papers with number dp-98-18.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 01 Feb 1998
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-98-18
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.rff.org

More information through EDIRC

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-98-18. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Webmaster)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.