The Association for Commuter Transportation is an avid supporter of federal legislation to promote the concept of livability and believe that more should to be done to involve land use planning within our transportation plans. But what must not be lost in this debate is the need to provide a concept of "livability" to those who live areas that are not adequately serviced by traditional bus and rail transit. People who live away from urban/city centers either live there out of choice or economic necessity. These Americans should be afforded a 'livable' commute. ACT believes that there are many ways to accomplish this.

In our authorization agenda, we have an entire section dedicated to small urban/rural neighborhoods. The focus of this effort is in getting employers engaged in their employees commute. This can be encouraged through tax incentives, changes to the planning process, or by providing grants for commuter programs. Two pieces of legislation that address this are 'Green Routes to Work' (HR 3271) and Commute LESS (HR 3517) offered by Congressman Sires (D-NJ). These are two bills which will promote livability by offering commuters with real options. ACT feels that by offering commuters options like carpooling, vanpooling, and telework; Congress and the Federal government can provide virtual and real connectivity which is the underlying essence of livability.

An example of this concept we would use is Anchorage, Alaska. Not because it is an out-of-the-way location, but because it illustrates a local response to very real livability issues. Anchorage has a very necessary vanpool program option for their residents. Anchorage’s land development is cut short due to the existing infrastructure that was conceived before anyone could understand how much population growth would come to the area. Anchorage sits in the middle of vast mountain ranges to the West, and water to the South and East. North of Anchorage from the water to the mountains is all dedicated Military land. There is literally nowhere to affordably build in Anchorage. This is why so many residents have moved further North of the Military installations where the land is more plentiful and houses can be much more affordable. The 60 mile one way commute from the Matanuska Susitna Borough is well worth it to the residents who cannot afford the high property costs in Anchorage. As the cost of fuel rises, having an affordable option to make that daily commute becomes a necessity. The Borough is the 38th fastest growing community in the US. In this case, reaching out to available land for development is their only option, and therefore need affordable options for commuting.

Local examples like this illustrate the need to revisit how federal policies shape the available local options to develop or re-develop communities. This authorization provides the opportunity to recognize that influence and move away from prescriptive program offerings towards performance and goal-based programs.

While there are many interesting responses to this question, there is another perspective that seems to be missing, so I wanted to note some different views from economists such as Ron Utt and Alan Pisarski:

President Obama's New Plan to Decide Where Americans Live and How They Travel (Ron Utt)
http://www.heritage.org/Research/SmartGrowth/bg2260.cfm

The Tipping Point: The Transportation-Housing Trade-Offs of Suburban, Urban and Rural Living (Alan Pisarski) http://www.heritage.org/Research/SmartGrowth/wp052209a.cfm

Will Obama's "Livability" Program Bring Britain's "Hobbit Homes" to America? (Ron Utt) http://www.heritage.org/Research/SmartGrowth/wm2601.cfm

We have a unique opportunity for the administration and Congress to put the pieces together to save money, make communities work better, and advance the goals of community health, environmental protection, and sustainable development.

With this administration, we’re seeing a real step forward that will level the playing field and make the federal government a better partner to state and local governments. By providing the right incentives, we can give people more transportation options, reduce our dependence on oil, improve public health, and invest in local jobs. Local communities around the country are taking advantage of new opportunities, including the economic recovery package, to make their communities more livable – from Portland to Pittsburgh, and from Salt Lake City to South Dakota.

Candidate Obama talked about the big picture of livability when he addressed the Conference of Mayors in the summer of 2008, and his cabinet officers have shown an unprecedented degree of cooperation and vision for what it takes to make livable communities: a greater range of transportation and housing choices, more job opportunities, a healthier environment, and reduced energy use. Initiatives spearheaded by Secretaries Donovan, Chu, and LaHood, along with EPA Administrator Jackson, show that the administration understands the importance of collaboration and cooperation among these key agencies.

Now federal government must use the tools it has, coordinate its efforts, and lead by example. The recovery package, as well as the energy and climate legislation working its way through Congress, is an example of smart policy that will create jobs, improve community livability and reduce our dependence on oil.

Economic stimulus money is flowing to states and localities, and with a special emphasis on items that will boost the economy and reduce a community’s carbon footprint. Money is being spent on ready-to-go, low-carbon transportation projects, such as the more than $20 billion that has been made available for over 6,000 shovel-ready transportation construction projects – over 3,000 of which are already underway. These projects will reduce oil consumption, create local jobs, and give people more transportation choices.

The House energy and climate bill adopted my proposals to direct funding to low carbon transportation options. In the House bill, 10% of the proceeds from the pollution permit auction go to the State Energy and Environment Development Accounts, some of which can be invested in transportation infrastructure that reduces energy use and expands commuting options. This is an opportunity for state and local governments to take advantage of federal programs and enact policies that will improve livability.

The Federal government should be a strong partner to local and state governments, providing opportunities for smart investments that will make our nation safer, healthier, and more economically secure. This is why I’m pleased to be working with the Democratic Caucus to launch the Livable Communities Task Force, a group of members of Congress who are committed to advancing legislation to accomplish these goals. By offering incentives to make communities more livable, we not only improve quality of life, but we make real inroads to creating jobs, jumpstarting our economy, and ending our dependence on dirty, expensive fuels

The following was submitted by Tony Chavira, associate editor of FourStory, a non-profit affordable housing online magazine that champions issues of fair living conditions:

It would be strange to talk about the potential for the interconnectedness of agencies and the Obama administration’s “Livable Communities” initiative and not mention the HUD’s HOPE VI “Public & Indian Housing” program and it’s varied successes over the past 20 years. Even despite the fact that the Bush administration essentially gutted the program’s budget, HOPE VI has set a great record for strategically-targeting blighted areas and structures and working with both federal and local agencies to renovate communities. By tying-in the transportation factor, the administration has finally taken the step we all hoped they would in promoting transit-oriented development that set a real agenda to integrate city transit at the federal level (I novel idea, I know).

Sometimes the coordinated management of agencies is what an area needs most in order to spur development interest and real smart growth change, but how often do we really tend to see that kind of inter-agency coordination? With this in mind, the HOPE VI has a few really successful examples of targeted, well-managed redevelopment, and I don’t think we should be too surprised that the administration is seeking to replicate its success on a larger scale, utilizing the assets of more federal agencies. In a nutshell, we should seek to use these great examples of public agency coordination for interconnected planning as launching points for larger, more ambitious projects and their management.

While most people think of intercity transit or bike paths when the terms transportation mobility or livability are used, freight rail has long been a partner in making the communities we serve more livable. We do this in two simple ways: by relieving congestion and by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Just last week, Newsweek recognized four of our nation’s biggest railroads – BNSF, CSX, Norfolk Southern and Union Pacific – in the magazine’s inaugural “Green Rankings” of the nation’s 500 largest corporations.

As the mover of 43 percent of our nation’s intercity freight, freight rail every day helps unclog our highways and roads. Given that one freight train can carry the load of 280 trucks, each ton-mile of freight that moves by rail instead of by road reduces greenhouse gas emissions by two-thirds or more.

Policymakers can help ensure freight rail continues its role in making our communities more livable by supporting policies that allow us to keep reinvesting in our critical network infrastructure. Whether through tax incentives or public-private partnerships, increased public investment in rail network capacity is essential to being able to move more people and goods by rail, instead of road, thus making our communities more livable.

Just wanted to let everyone know that I have an "Insider Interview" I did yesterday with former Transportation Secretary (and NJ expert blogger) Mary Peters posted elsewhere on the Web site. Here's the link:

http://insiderinterviews.nationaljournal.com/2009/10/post-1.php

I think the best definition of "livability" I've heard from a DOT official is "the capacity to have a high quality of life at a low cost of living."

Both of these can be defined or quantified in terms of local, or preferably (to address Secretary Biehler's point that absolute local economy can lead to poor choices in the aggregate) regional metrics. What percentage of the population has access to various mobility options? Good telecommunications? Affordable housing choices? Good schools? Safe neighborhoods (in terms of crime and traffic)? And so on.

I think many will agree that such standards for performance matter, and should inform public policy. These are the kinds of "goalposts," as James Corless mentions, that local, state and federal policy should be aligned towards. That is not the case now, thanks in part to a multi-decadal accretion of policies and investments that are not entirely performance-based (to put it charitably).

This is not about micromanagement, nor is it about doctrinal reliance on specific designs or other means to achieve valued ends. It's about a new partnership with states and regions based on the principle that performance matters most. And I think we're fortunate enough to have a team at DOT that is busy hammering out such an innovative partnership.

"Livability is in the eyes of the beholder. Suburban residents consider their communitied already eminently "livable." They cite good schools, low crime rates, leafy streets and privacy that comes with having one's own backyard as important elements of "livability." True, highway congestion detracts somewhat from the sense of "livability" for suburbanites who face long commutes, but most of them consider it a fair price to pay for the benefits and enjoyment of suburban living.

Steve Heminger is right on the money when he says that local elected officials are best equipped to decide how best to enhance their communities "livability." A single federally-imposed standard of "livability" colored by some officials' aversion to the automobile would not do justice to the diversity of our suburban nation.

Steve -

Thanks for your constructive suggestion, that the most useful federal role would be to put more federal transportation funds directly in the hands of local officials. Would not the simplest way to achieve this desirable objective be for the states, rather than the federal government, to collect the transportation funds themselves in the first place?

Of all the suggestions (except yours) made for further federal action, I suggest that a uniform carbon tax, carefully calculated to reduce “Greenhouse Gas” emissions, could be the least harmful.

And how many of us would like to see land developers lobbying members of the federal congress for improved “livability”?

Gabriel

Any discussion about livability as a goal must acknowledge the federal government’s role in getting us to where we are today. Federal intervention from the 1940s on in promoting highway construction, mortgage lending for suburban homes, funding for far-flung infrastructure and a host of other actions made dispersal of population and dependence on personal automobiles de facto national policy. Those policies were understandable in the 1950s, but as energy has gotten more expensive, congestion has skyrocketed, households have gotten smaller and Americans increasingly crave different lifestyle options than their parents did, those policies just do not meet our needs in 2009.

The principles of livability supported by the Obama administration emphasize housing close to jobs and transit, accessible retail and ample parks and open space. Or as DOT Secretary LaHood characterized it with one sentence earlier this week (LINK TO: http://dc.streetsblog.org/2009/10/05/lahood-defines-livability-in/), “a community where if people don’t want an automobile, they don’t have to have one.” To that I would add, “and if you do want to have one, you don’t have to drive it all day, every day just to live your life.”

I share Greg Cohen’s concern for families of modest means who struggle to find a home they can afford, especially when the “affordable” houses are in distant locations where each worker has to buy a car, insure it and fill the tank a couple times a week. The truth is, there are plenty of those houses out there, and a lot of them are sitting empty or going into foreclosure because that is not what everyone needs today. We have had years and years of federal, state and local policies lining up to provide one option and one option only: to live in a place where you must buy, insure, fuel -- and spend much of your day in -- a car. That’s fine if it is what you want and what you can afford; the point here is that a lot of people need something different, so we have to remove the regulatory barriers that keep them from getting it. At the same time, we need to create incentives and other inducements to ensure developers can make it affordable.

There is little question left about whether “livability” should be a national priority — it’s a priority for the everyday Americans who are looking to spend more time at home and out of traffic, or to drive less and be able to walk to the park or the store with their families. But the principle aim here is affordability. Greg is right that the places with good access to transit and jobs are popular, and therefore tend to be more expensive. Many communities around the country are working to solve this problem, but they need partners in the private sector and at the state and federal levels. The Obama initiative is about helping to facilitate, seed and speed along these innovative responses, while aligning federal spending and policies to support, and not thwart, these efforts.

Americans understandably expect decisions about the character of development to be made at the local level by their local officials. There is absolutely no reason why this has to change.

At the federal level, we need to update some of our tax incentives and priorities from the 1950’s to 2009 to make livability, affordable housing and transportation long-term goals of our federal transportation spending. Federal policy should be like a pair of goalposts setting broad parameters, but leaving it to local decision makers to find the specific solutions that work best in their communities.

Just like Secretary LaHood said in the same interview, “The idea of livable communities is not Ray LaHood’s idea or Barack Obama’s idea: It’s the people’s. This is what the people want right now.”

Most everyone agrees that the nation’s transportation infrastructure is in serious condition and that we have to take dramatic action to repair and improve it so we can continue to enjoy its benefits and grow as a nation. Some of the changes we need to make are structural, but many will involve changing our behavior. As we look to plan and design our transportation system of the future, community livability and sustainability will have to be priorities.

Civil engineers have long advocated for mode-neutral planning and increased intermodalism. As we plan the communities of tomorrow, we need to do a better job pairing needs with transportation plans. We also have to give people better alternatives to driving than the ones that already exist. ASCE’s 2009 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure found that only half of Americans have access to public transportation and that only about a quarter of those people consider it a “good” option.

We need to educate people about what their use of the transportation system really costs. There’s the real dollar cost for maintenance and operations, as well as the indirect costs of time, lost productivity and increased emissions. The idea of creating livable communities is only possible if the users are willing to change along with the infrastructure.

These reforms and innovations will not happen overnight, but we need to begin working toward them today. In the meantime, we can encourage employers to offer telecommuting or flex schedules, which will ease some of the demands on the system and get people used to doing business a little bit differently.

The following post was submitted by Allen D. Biehler, Pennsylvania Secretary of Transportation and AASHTO President:

It is one of my greatest frustrations when I learn that a local government has rezoned a piece of property that will generate additional truck or car traffic without looking at the larger transportation grid. A new manufacturing plant? Great for the economy but why is it stuck at the end of a highway with no access to the Interstate? An upscale residential community? Again, good for the tax base but how will the homeowners get to work if transit, buses or other non-highway modes are not in the vicinity? These are some of the issues state transportation officials must contend with in devising sound, multi-modal and sustainable programs. Yet land use has always been the prerogative of local government and we must respect this responsibility.

To secure a more sustainable future, therefore, communications and partnerships between local and state officials must get stronger. As state transportation officials, we must encourage a “triple bottom line” in evaluating any development project to ensure that it will result in an expanding economy, reducing our environmental footprint, and improving the quality of life for our growing population.

We must take a balanced approach at assessing our future development, promoting partnerships across all levels of government, business and academia, while seeking innovative approaches like never before. Where it is appropriate, we must work hard to find opportunities to encourage non-motorized modes of transportation and to slow the growth in miles driven in this country.

The role of the federal government can and should be to offer national goals that will enable us to meet the needs of all parts of America, rural and urban. Rather than be prescriptive, these goals should be broad enough to enable all of us – in towns, villages, cities and large megalopolises alike – to join onto the “livable communities bandwagon.”

Sustainable communities are not something new in America. Our earliest inhabitants recognized that their resources were precious and had to be carefully managed in order to sustain life and prosperity. These days, of course, our world has expanded well beyond our farms, our cities, our states, our country – but the principles behind a livable community are still the same. Innovation, partnerships, common goals, safety and personal mobility must be the hallmarks of any forward-thinking transportation policy for America.

Let me give my shortest answer yet to this week's question about how better to link transportation investment and land use location decisions: put more federal transportation funds directly in the hands of the local elected officials who decide how their communities grow. That will put the authority -- and accountability -- for more "livable" outcomes right where it belongs. Chairman Oberstar's bill takes a strong step in this direction with a new program called Metro Mobility. Here's hoping the Senate heads in the same direction.

The current emphasis on land use and transit oriented development (TOD) planning should more actively involve the public transportation operating agencies. The spotlight now being placed on the relationship between land use and public transportation requires a deep understanding of the capabilities of public transportation and what makes it attractive to existing and potential users. Devising land use and TOD strategies also requires those doing the planning to understand the market forces that contribute to increased public transportation use. It takes much more than simply promoting a denser development pattern to achieve an environment where public transportation can thrive and auto use can be reduced.

Moreover, access to public transportation service and the attributes of that access can have as much or more to do with whether people are attracted to using public transportation. So too does the placement of attractive destinations (e.g., office towers, sports venues) close to public transportation hubs. Generally, all major trip generating facilities, whether they be entertainment/sports venues, institutions of higher learning or office buildings etc, which generate more than about 15,000 total daily trips, equivalent to a 1.5m sf office building/complex, should be proximate to one or more major public transportation services.

The public transportation operating agencies in this country receive the majority of their Federal funding through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). There is a multi-tiered, well-established relationship between the FTA and these agencies which should be used to channel funding to plan for improved land use and transit relationships, including TODs, to these operating agencies. Contracting and reporting relationships exist that provide an easy conduit for these funds allowing for:

• a tighter alignment of FTA funded transit planning and land use planning;
• enhanced matching of existing transit capabilities with land use opportunities; and,
• simplifying the distribution of available funding

The need to maximize the value of all modes of transit in fostering land use patterns that are sensitive to today’s emphasis on reducing green house gases, promoting affordable housing, cutting petroleum based energy consumption and wasteful sprawl development is apparent. Some transit agencies today are active in working with communities and developers on improved land use patterns and TOD projects. They are ready and eager to become partners in the future planning to encourage land use patterns and TODs that insure investments in economic development complement investments in transit infrastructure and services.

In light of the preceding statements, I recommend that:

• At least $15m in funding be made available from the Comprehensive Planning Grant Program to transit operating agencies, which is administered by the FTA, to work with other levels of government in a proactive manner to establish land use plans, master plans and other related programs to improve the ability of public transit to serve the needs of the residents, workers and visitors in a specific geographic area;
• At least $20m in Challenge Grant funding be made available to transit operating agencies for use in partnering with communities and others to foster improved land use and TOD planning, both aimed at achieving an implementable economic development project that facilitates increased transit use, among other goals;
• HUD should have oversight over and participate with the FTA in determinations of who will receive funding; and,
• A competitive process should be used to distribute these funds based on transparent and understandable requirements.
• Consider including a locally-based Advisory Council to the Federal Interagency Council structure. This Advisory Council would be composed of knowledgeable municipal economic development experts, transit agency representatives, academics and developer practitioners.

I’m pleased that the first two comments focus on the impacts of transportation and land use policies on the poor and un-included in our society. The issue of livability for everyone in our society is an important one. High direct costs and high opportunity costs are some of the greatest barriers to a livable community. Easy access to a full range of competitive jobs, stores, places of recreation, doctors and hospitals, and entertainment improve our quality-of-life. I recommend reading research by Margy Waller such as “Employment and Housing Mobility: A New Report from The Mobility Agenda” and Wendell Cox, such as “How Smart Growth Disadvantages African-Americans & Hispanics.”

Governor Glendening discusses the plight of workers who live in Martinsburg, West Virginia and work in Washington DC or Baltimore. I can imagine how disappointed the Governor must be that these folks couldn’t afford the more “livable”, more expensive, more regulated, and higher taxed properties that are closer to their jobs in Baltimore and Washington. Perhaps many of these workers wouldn’t have fled my home State of Maryland, “leapfrogging” inaccessible rural counties outside of the Governor’s smart growth priority funding areas, if they could have afforded a single-family home and a little land closer to work. I’m impressed by the implied solution to correct their behavior -- not approving their car loans! This type of “solution” is a great example of the dangers of allowing well-meaning federal officials to develop or “incentivize” local land use planning & zoning schemes.

Another problem worth considering is that the federal government does not have the constitutional power to regulate local land use and zoning. Yet this fact doesn’t appear to have registered with proponents of the federal “livability” agenda.

On the other side of the coin, I seriously agree with AARP’s Nancy Leamond’s concerns about unaffordable “livable” communities, such as rail-based, transit-oriented development that seems almost designed to push poorer people out of the cities and into less dense suburbs that cannot provide the same quality of transit service. Certainly this result has been a major problem for many who live here in Washington DC. California has also been grappling with this problem in supposedly livable communities that are unaffordable for teachers, police officers, and many other middle class people to actual live in.

Like the many disastrous planning fads of the past (think tenements), the country should not be fooled into setting national “livability” standards for local land use planning. The federal government should not be involved in local land use planning regardless of pleasant sounding names for their programs.

The livable communities effort and the new sustainable communities partnership between HUD, DOT, and EPA share the important goal of providing a range of housing and mobility choices so that persons of all ages and incomes can live in a location that works best for them.    All of the principles endorsed by the partnership support better access to affordable housing, more transportation options, and lower transportation costs.  In that spirit, greater public investment in multi-modal transportation systems will allow households to make travel choices that cost less money, resulting in dollars that could go to savings or for other needs.
 
Transit-oriented development (“TOD”) is popular precisely because it provides these multiple transportation options in a compact, walkable, mixed use neighborhood.  But that popularity and convenience drive up land and housing prices and all too soon affordable homes are no longer affordable for many. 
 
This week an AARP report found that in 20 major metropolitan areas, two-thirds of the affordable apartments located within a half mile of public transit are at risk of being priced out of the affordable market when their federal subsidies expire within the next five years.

Intentionally approaching transit-oriented developments with better coordination and planning between transit providers, local governments and developers could address many equity concerns especially if it resulted in a fixed number of affordable housing set-asides. For example, FTA, as part of the New Starts approval process should require that localities have a plan for retaining and expanding the stock of affordable housing near future fixed-guideway rail or bus lines.  
 
In many parts of the country, the outer edge of the suburbs have enjoyed a disproportionate share of federal transportation dollars compared to existing communities. Unfortunately, this has facilitated suburban sprawl, increased commute time and costs, and further isolated economically disadvantaged inner city residents.  One principle of the federal partnership for sustainable communities is to support existing communities. To carry out this principle, regions and states should be required to show that the distribution of federal transportation dollars will do just that, including analysis of how new transportation facilities or services will impact existing and future community residents,
 
Preserving affordable housing in transit-rich locations allows affordable travel choices to those who do not drive.  Providing access to the broader region through a network of transit routes is an excellent way to help people save money and have it available to spend on other needs. 
 
Ultimately, the transportation sector can help make safer and more attractive communities that accommodate everyone by

• investing more in public transportation and paratransit services with increased frequency and coverage to ensure that everyone can get where they need and want to go, and

 

• Building Complete Streets that accommodate all users--motorists, transit users, pedestrians, or cyclists--regardless of their age or abilities.

  There is much that the transportation sector can do to enhance essential connections between housing affordability and travel choices.  But only when we’re all pulling together--transportation, housing, and land use planners as well as community agencies--can we remake America’s communities to be more livable communities.

During a recent visit to Martinsburg, West Virginia, it became clear to me many workers are spending nearly as much on gas for the cars they drive to their jobs in Washington, D.C. or Baltimore as they are on their home mortgages. Yet those costs weren’t considered when the loan paperwork was signed. And they should have been.

The public sector must understand and communicate that the real cost of housing includes transportation costs. Right now, those are astronomical for folks living any distance from job centers as well as dropping off and picking up kids from school and doing the family shopping.

The key to reducing those costs involves increasing transit options, such as light rail, as well as the walkability of neighborhoods with in-fill projects and redevelopment. It also involves policy changes that put housing and jobs closer together. We should also make the cost of transportation a consideration in home mortgage applications.

Already, there’s an explosion of mass transit projects across the country, with 75 percent of 34 referendums approved last November that provide $75 billion in new revenues to support those projects. This is a good start. Smart Growth America will take the issue further when top state administrators come together October 27 in Washington, D.C. to discuss shaping future policy to form tighter collaboration with regard to housing and transportation.

Former Maryland Governor Parris Glendening serves as a Senior Advisor for NSI, where he works with the NSI team to develop winning legislative and marketing strategies for NSI’s clients. Mr. Glendening also serves as President of Smart Growth Leadership Institute, part of Smart Growth America, a nation-wide coalition of nearly 100 organizations promoting a better and more healthy way to grow; one that protects open space and farmland, revitalizes neighborhoods, keeps housing affordable, and makes communities more livable. As president, Mr. Glendening travels the country advising about the dangers of urban sprawl and its effect on our health, our prosperity and our communities as well as recommending a range of solutions to governors and public leaders.