The fact that President Obama said part of the funds will be used for robust investment to implement the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) is exciting to us. We’re very pleased to see the recognition that our national airspace system cannot be transformed by focusing on runways alone, although they are critical. NextGen is the future of a safer, cleaner, quieter aviation system and its implementation requires attention to both ground and airborne infrastructure.

Civil aviation has an incredible capacity to spur economic investment. Manufacturers of NextGen-related avionics equipment estimate that a $6 billion investment over 30 months to equip the U.S. civil fleet will generate approximately 150,000 direct and indirect jobs. AIA has long championed the inclusion of NextGen acceleration in any economic stimulus package because of the strong five-to-one stimulative effect of civil aviation investment.

Allocation of the $50 billion fund must be heavily influenced by literally asking: “Where will America get the most bounce from its buck?” Transportation Secretary LaHood's Future of Aviation Advisory Committee is asking the right questions and its recommendations should help inform how the president's Infrastructure Bank spends money on our nation's aviation infrastructure. Additional taxes on the civil aviation industry or taking money out of an already depleted Airport and Airway Trust Fund is not the answer.

When this issue can be addressed legislatively is a difficult question. Considering the busy September legislative schedule and Members’ plans to go home and campaign in October, it’s unlikely we’ll see action on this initiative before the November 2 election. I would not rule out seeing this come up in a lame duck session.

This country is in desperate need of innovation. We are still mired in a recession triggered by a collapse in real estate that was driven in no small part by the exhaustion of the “drive-til-you-qualify” housing market. The housing market was showing profound signs of change before the real estate-triggered financial meltdown halted all development, with surging demand for more conveniently located, walkable neighborhoods. As just one example, the city of Atlanta added nearly 120,000 new residents since 2000, a population increase of 28 percent, after decades of serious population loss.

Two summers after the devastating run of soaring gas prices in 2008, we are again suffering from anxiety over our over-reliance on petroleum as oil gushes into the Gulf of Mexico. Just yesterday, the House Livable Communities Task Force sent House leadership an urgent letter arguing that Americans must be given new options for where they live and how they get around as part of the longterm solution to this potentially crippling vulnerability. As they noted:

The transportation sector accounts for almost three-quarters of U.S. oil consumption, and Americans consume over 10 percent of the world’s oil just driving around. ... Livable communities offer a safer, cleaner and more economical approach to reducing our nation's energy consumption ... .

“Livability” has become the administration’s catch-all term for providing communities the resources and expertise they need to give their citizens the living and travel options they are looking for, while sustaining a high quality of life. With the old model gasping its last breaths, our local communities and metro areas are the laboratories for emerging innovations in building the next America. The best way to sort out the most promising new ideas is through the tried-and-true American way: Competition.

The principles articulated by the three-agency partnership are an excellent prism through which to evaluate grant applications from local communities. The trick will be holding themselves and their grant recipients accountable for collecting and evaluating data on the success of these projects. Did that new neighborhood near a rail transit station draw the expected customers? Did residents and visitors drive less, walk and use transit more? Are residents satisfied, and if not, what would they change? There won’t be a one-size solution, but we should all be able to learn lessons about what works in a given region of the country or in certain types of communities.

This is an unsettling time for many of us, but it also could be an exciting time of positive change and new discoveries. The Obama administration deserves a lot of credit both for recognizing the link between housing, transportation, economic development and environmental stewardship and initiating a bold partnership to make sure this coordination happens. We should support their impulse to prod innovation, even as we hold their feet to the fire in evaluating results.

The Transportation Equity Network (TEN) has five priorities for sustainable community projects:

1) Making sure that low-income people are involved throughout the process -- in planning, implementation and monitoring the project afterward. Housing Trust Fund boards and public housing authorities often have low-income representatives or tenant leaders on their boards and commissions. Having this kind of representation at the center of the process, regular public reports and promoting public involvement in other ways is essential to the success of housing, jobs and transportation projects.

2) When considering the number of housing units that will be produced, it is important to use the pioneering model of inclusionary housing, a method used in the cities of Santa Fe, NM and Burlington, VT and 300 other localities to make sure that a guaranteed percent of the units created are reserved for low income people. Inclusionary housing works well because often there are no visible signs that low-income people and high-income people are living immediately adjacent to each other. When inclusionary zoning is practiced in the best way, the neighborhood maintains its design integrity, parents have access to better school districts and children have a more diverse experience in their role models. As the Innovative Housing Institute's website (www.inhousing.org) states, inclusionary housing:

• Offers families across the economic spectrum better access to good jobs, good schools, good transportation, safe neighborhoods, quality commerce, and recreational and cultural amenities, and

• Strengthens local economies so that employers can attract and retain a diverse workforce, including essential workers like nurses, teachers, police officers, and service industry workers.

3) Making sure that most housing units use universal design elements so that they are easily adaptable for disabled residents saves money and makes the units more attractive all people because of the more open floor plan to allow wheelchair access. The City of St. Louis Affordable Housing Commission adopted the principles of universal design for the production of new units during its formation several years ago. Paraquad (www.paraquad.org) is a pioneering disability rights group that campaigned for the inclusion of this important principle.

4) Prioritizing mixed-use development that encourages a variety of grocery stores and other needed businesses to counteract "food deserts" -- areas where there is no healthy food available for purchase, and the only options are fast food restaurants and corner stores. TEN member MOSES (mosesmi.org) is fighting for this in Detroit, while our national partner PolicyLink is addressing it on a national scale (policylink.org – see their report “The Grocery Gap”).

5) Mandating Community Workforce Agreements for the construction phase of projects and for the hiring of subsequent maintenance, retail and other personnel is essential. The FHWA and FTA are sponsoring workshops in 12 cities that lifts up the “Missouri Model” of community workforce agreements. TEN, Metropolitan Congregations United (MCU), and United Congregations of the Metro East (UCM) convinced the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT). Our vision was that 30% of the work hours on a $550 million highway project in St. Louis should be reserved for low-income people, women, and minorities and that 0.5% or $2.5 million dollars should be reserved for training and support of those individuals. The negotiations, conducted by COMTO, the Council of Minority Transportation Officials, included all interested parties, including prime contractors, disadvantaged business owners, labor unions, labor apprenticeship programs, pre-apprentice training providers and community groups. They produced a model that is now being showcased around the nation. The elements of the model are also being lifted up as the "Green Construction Careers Model.”

The grants are a great idea and should forward the livability goals outlined by Secretary LaHood and quoted by Gabriel Roth. As I talk to people across the country, many are yearning to substitute some of their car trips with pedestrian, bike, or transit trips but just don’t have that choice.

In America today, we offer people three “options,” in quotes because they are for the most part truly unpalatable ones.

1. Walk or bike in unsafe conditions
2. Take mass transit that is infrequent, low quality, unreliable, and not point to point
3. Own your own car that delivers on demand, safe, and point to point travel

And these cars must be owned and driven by one person or household; sharing cars or rides for money is not legally allowed nor supported by the insurance industry. Additionally, we have regulations that require commercial and residential real estate developments to make accommodations for cars but not for other forms of transportation. And these car accommodations are almost always mandatory, not optional.

Is it any wonder that as soon as people can afford one or are old enough to drive one, the car is the mode selected?

The HUD-DOT grants seem like they are putting up money to help change these rules of engagement -- from physical retrofits to reworking zoning requirements -- that currently push us down the expensive no-option car-only transportation “choice.”

What might be done? A good use would be to focus on neighborhoods and towns that can almost achieve those goals and turn them into ones that do achieve those goals. For short dollars, and leveraging what is already there, we can turn these into the livable and desirable places to live that can serve as models for the rest of the country to follow.

1.Make sure that there are safe walking and biking possibilities.

2. Redefine mass transit. In rich countries today, we have drawn very hard lines between personal and commercial vehicles, with the result that willing people with their own cars can not fill mass transport gaps in exchange for money. Typically this is illegal and our insurance systems won’t support it. I can’t formally pay you $5 to pick up my mom and take her somewhere – even if you are going there yourself. I can’t let you drive my car in exchange for money. Once money is involved – and why shouldn’t it be? – current laws define this endeavor as a commercial one and apply significant safety and legal structures that just don’t make sense. If we want to see more innovation in the transportation sector; if we want to enable more people to satisfy their needs without owning a car, we must let small scale efforts flourish.

3.Change the rules (insurance, licensing, parking) that assume one owner/one adult/one building unit/one car. We need to make sure that people can buy, or rent, or consume fractions of cars and parking spaces. If we don’t change these rules, we are forced to buy, consume, and park and get our money’s worth of whole cars, whether or not that is what we want.

DOT Secretary Ray LaHood defined “livability”, as

“Being able to take your kids to school, go to work, see a doctor, drop by the grocery or post office, go out to dinner and a movie, and play with your kids in a park, all without having to get in your car."

How about using some of these funds to test the concept on the Secretary and his DOT colleagues? Apartment blocks could be built within walking distance of the DOT’s main DC offices, to include not only residential accommodation but also doctors’ offices, groceries, a post office, restaurants and a movie house. A park could be included, with a school next to it.

The demand for these facilities by DOT staff could be used to assess the need to replicate more elsewhere. Accommodation not taken up by DOT folk could be offered to HUD or EPA staff, with direct non-stop high-speed rail connections to their own main offices in DC.

Just wondering …

On January 1, 2011, the first of nearly 80 million Baby Boomers starts turning sixty-five. I’m one of these folks. To “age successfully” we’re going to need housing that keeps us safe and comfortable and transportation choices to get us where we want and need to go. While the overwhelming majority of Boomers want to continue living in their present homes and communities, the sheer size of the generation means that greater numbers of older Americans also will be opting for change whether downsizing nearby or moving away to be closer to friends and family.

The DOT and HUD funding that supports projects to improve the housing-transportation connection recognizes that both the public and private sectors need to rethink traditional approaches to community development. No longer should it be good enough for residents to see a shopping center 100 yards away and then be forced to get in their cars and drive two miles to get there. Nor should it be good enough for residents of housing developments to in effect be stranded without options if they don’t drive.

In many urban areas with significant transit investment, transit oriented developments (TOD’s) are gaining cache and they are a smart move, but too many focus only on market-rate housing and high-end consumption. They set rents that the market can bear, often with little thought about serving the entire population with affordable rental or home prices. Will the TOD’s of tomorrow include affordable housing, as well as services for working professionals and older persons? Will there be a mix of doctor’s offices, libraries, banks, and multigenerational community centers? Will priority be given to development projects that leverage existing properties, such as federally-assisted Section 202 housing and other government-assisted housing, as well as to projects where Complete Streets policies are in effect? This federally assisted housing can be the cornerstone for creating sustainable and livable developments for all ages and incomes.

The suburban landscape—where most Americans live and where most Boomers will continue to live—is particularly in need of change. Right now, loop-and-lollipop neighborhoods abound. Mixed-use and mixed-income places need to become the norm, not the exception. And as new buildings are constructed—especially residences, built with either public or private funds—they should all have universal design and environmental features built into them. This approach will benefit generations to come. By mixing land uses and providing choices for how to get around—whether driving, walking, cycling, or using transit—people will be able to remain independent longer. And, importantly, a more robust sense of community will emerge.

There is no one approach to building “livability.” The six federal principles offer guidance, but are not prescriptive. Each community or region confronts its own set of variables, and costs are always a factor. But progress to make communities more sustainable is limited only by our collective imaginations. AARP hopes that the aging of community residents is top-of-mind as the public and private sectors cooperate to build a more livable America for everyone.

Bringing together the resources available from the Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development is the best way to ensure that funded projects create more livable and sustainable communities. As the work of each department directly affects the other, it simply doesn’t make sense to engage in community planning or project development without input from each agency. This joint effort is meant to ensure the most effective use of federal dollars to promote transportation choices, economic development, access to employment centers, and housing options for a wide range of income levels.

The partnership between DOT and HUD identifies public transportation as a centerpiece in developing more appealing places for Americans to live, work, and raise families and reducing our reliance on automobiles. For example, households near public transportation drive an average of 4,400 fewer miles than households with no access to public transit. This equates to an individual household reduction of 223 gallons of fuel per year.

An important use of available grant funding should be to promote transit-oriented development (TOD), where communities are developed around planned and existing rail station and bus hubs. Public transit also plays a key role in lowering household transportation expenses, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, providing mobility options and access, and fostering economic growth - all of which meet the principles of a livable community. Americans living in areas served by public transportation save 646 million hours in travel time and 398 million gallons of fuel annually in congestion reduction alone. The overall impact of public transportation saves the United States 4.2 billion gallons of gasoline annually.

As the catalyst for this broad spectrum of benefits, it is essential that investment in public transit is increased to serve the needs of our citizens as well as to provide the foundation for creating livable and sustainable places.

This is a guest post from Liz Rao, HNTB’s national public transit services chairwoman, who has more than 25 years of experience with transportation planning and program development. Before joining HNTB, Rao was assistant general manager for planning and development for the Regional Transportation District in Denver.

The Denver area is home to a number of established, successful transit-oriented developments including CityCenter Englewood in Englewood, Colo., one of the first projects in the nation to replace an enclosed, regional shopping mall with an open-air, mixed-use city core.

Cinderella City Mall opened for business in 1968. At the time, it was the world’s largest shopping center under one roof. By 1974, the mall accounted for 52 percent of Englewood’s sales tax revenue. However, as suburban competition increased, retail trends shifted and a decline set in. By 1994, the mall contributed only 2.6 percent of Englewood’s tax revenues before closing for good.

Englewood turned to the concepts of new urbanism and transit-oriented development to revive its declining tax base. City leaders envisioned transforming the neglected property into a thriving community by building on the region’s investment in transit. Working closely with the Denver Regional Transportation District, the city integrated its development with the Englewood transit station, which was under construction next to the old mall.

The project’s urban design coordinates the complex needs of a suburb while transforming a single-use development served only by automobiles into an integrated setting accessible by train, bus, car, bike and foot. The 55-acre, public-private development centers on a two-acre public piazza with walkable streets and more than 800,000 square feet of intermodal transit, office, civic, retail and residential space, including a 440-unit, higher-end apartment complex.

CityCenter has revitalized Englewood and helped it recover its lost tax base. It is also a model for intelligent regional design. Today, Englewood is one of RTD’s highest ridership stations. The new 440-unit apartment complex is a success. And, three big-box retailers, restaurants and a fitness center continue to generate sales tax revenue.