Least-cost planning methodology (LCPM), also referred to as "least-cost planning" (LCP) is a relatively new technique used by economists for making rational decisions about investments in transportation and other urban infrastructure projects.
It is based on cost–benefit analysis. However, it is more comprehensive in that it looks at not only the total costs and total benefits for an individual project, but it also examines the total costs and benefits for all alternatives or combinations thereof and treats them on an "equal footing." These alternatives include not only construction projects but also demand reduction measures, such as road pricing, developing more walkable neighborhoods and promoting telecommuting.
Equal footing means that there is no discrimination against some alternatives based on political or ideological factors.
LCPM itself is generally more costly than cost–benefit analysis, because of the requirement to study objectively all potential alternatives. However, it can provide large savings to taxpayers because it will do a better job of selecting those projects which maximize benefits while minimizing costs.
There has been a trend towards making LCPM mandatory for regional transportation plans. For example, it has been required by Washington State law (RCW 47.80.030) for regional transportation plans since July 1, 1994.
Famous quotes containing the words cost, planning and/or methodology:
“I knew that the wall was the main thing in Quebec, and had cost a great deal of money.... In fact, these are the only remarkable walls we have in North America, though we have a good deal of Virginia fence, it is true.”
—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)
“Play for young children is not recreation activity,... It is not leisure-time activity nor escape activity.... Play is thinking time for young children. It is language time. Problem-solving time. It is memory time, planning time, investigating time. It is organization-of-ideas time, when the young child uses his mind and body and his social skills and all his powers in response to the stimuli he has met.”
—James L. Hymes, Jr. (20th century)
“One might get the impression that I recommend a new methodology which replaces induction by counterinduction and uses a multiplicity of theories, metaphysical views, fairy tales, instead of the customary pair theory/observation. This impression would certainly be mistaken. My intention is not to replace one set of general rules by another such set: my intention is rather to convince the reader that all methodologies, even the most obvious ones, have their limits.”
—Paul Feyerabend (1924–1994)