Transportation Experts

How Can We Promote Greater Awareness Of Transportation Safety?

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:45:00 GMT

Last week, both the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Senate Commerce Committee held hearings on the increasingly deadly problem of distracted driving, which Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood calls a "serious and ongoing threat to safety." LaHood told the House panel that nearly 6,000 people died on the roads and more than half a million were injured last year in crashes involving distracted driving. And on Oct. 21, a Northwest Airlines flight bound for Minneapolis overshot its destination because the pilots were paying more attention to working out crew schedules on their laptops than they were to flying the plane. LaHood has pledged to address the issue of cockpit distractions, which he also denounced last week.

Have Americans, multitasking behind the wheel or even in the cockpit, become complacent about transportation safety? And what can lawmakers and the transportation community do to promote greater safety awareness, both on the part of average Americans and among the transportation professionals who are responsible for ensuring the safety of millions of passengers?

Robert L. Darbelnet responded to How Can We Promote Greater Awareness Of Transportation Safety? on November 6, 2009 03:48 PM

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:45:00 GMT

Despite the efforts of the traffic safety community, society as a whole has become extremely complacent about the staggering roadway death toll. Instead of demanding action, it appears we accept these preventable deaths as the cost of the mobility we enjoy. As has already been mentioned in earlier postings, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety has undertaken important work to try to better understand our traffic safety “culture” and figure out ways to change it. The Foundation published its first-annual Traffic Safety Culture Index, a nationwide survey examining the attitudes and actions of people across the country, in 2008. The results...

Patrick J. Natale, P.E. responded to How Can We Promote Greater Awareness Of Transportation Safety? on November 6, 2009 02:08 PM

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:45:00 GMT

Protecting public safety should be the utmost priority for each and every one of us. According to the Transportation Construction Coalition study, On a Crash Course: the Dangers and Health Costs of Deficient Roadways, about half of all highway fatalities are due to unsafe road conditions. That is one obvious example of how the industry must continue advocating for resources to make the vital repairs and improvements needed to provide the public with safe and efficient transportation. The best infrastructure in the world won’t be able to protect a driver who is engaging in unsafe behavior though, so it just...

Steve Cassano responded to How Can We Promote Greater Awareness Of Transportation Safety? on November 6, 2009 10:49 AM

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:45:00 GMT

The issue of protecting the traveling public underpins the federal role in transportation and is an issue upon which Democrats and Republicans alike can agree. Regional transportation planners are required in their federal transportation plans to account for both the safety and the security of the traveling public through the development of plans and programs designed to make physical safety improvements, but also to affect culture change among the citizens in our regions. The problem of distracted driving is just that, a problem in need of a fundamental shift in the way drivers view their responsibilities to each other while...

Gabriel Roth responded to How Can We Promote Greater Awareness Of Transportation Safety? on November 5, 2009 08:27 PM

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:45:00 GMT

Bill Wilkinson is surely right to ask “Why do we persist in believing that public information and education are going to change traffic safety outcomes when, after decades of this stuff, we’re still killing approx. 40,000 people every year?” But Bill’s answers — and those of some others — miss a critical factor – financial incentives. Over a million people are killed worldwide every year, but those to blame are often not held financially accountable. One way to bring financial accountability to bear would be to require insurers to test and license the drivers and vehicles they insure. Placing this...

Robin Chase responded to How Can We Promote Greater Awareness Of Transportation Safety? on November 5, 2009 05:55 PM

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:45:00 GMT

One fast and low cost method to reducing death and injury among the traveling public would be to have wireless internet connectivity on all public transportation. 1. It would reduce distracted driving-related accidents by providing an alternative for those who are currently driving and communicating with friends, family, and work colleagues while driving, 2. It would attract new public transit riders, reducing VMTs and therefore all types of vehicle-related accidents, by offering a significant and long-term competitive advantage of transit over personal driving. Accidents per passenger mile on transit are dramatically lower than those completed by car. It’s a...

James Corless responded to How Can We Promote Greater Awareness Of Transportation Safety? on November 5, 2009 03:49 PM

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:45:00 GMT

While we need to be sensitive to individual liberties, there is a legitimate role for public policy when personal choices behind the wheel put others people’s safety on the line. The right combination of “carrots and sticks” can do a lot to lower these incidents. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller’s proposal to provide grants to states that develop stricter safety laws on cell phone use is a potential step forward. Senators Robert Menendez, Charles Schumer, Kay Hagan and Mary Landrieu have also contributed potential solutions, proposing states lose 25 percent of highway funding unless they ban text-message and e-mail...

Lisa Caruso responded to How Can We Promote Greater Awareness Of Transportation Safety? on November 5, 2009 03:47 PM

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:45:00 GMT

The following post is from Bill Wilkinson, a consultant and the former head of the National Center for Bicycling & Walking: A “Lack of Awareness” …? I think not. Rather, it is a lack of will and a lack of leadership that sustains our appalling highway (un)safety record. Has there ever been a Secretary of USDOT or a NHTSA Administrator that wasn’t “aware” of the problem? After 40+ years, can either of these two agencies – or anyone else – honestly assert that the “problem” is due to a lack of data or that we need more research? What we...

Jack Schenendorf responded to How Can We Promote Greater Awareness Of Transportation Safety? on November 5, 2009 01:24 PM

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:45:00 GMT

Significant progress has been made over the last 50 years in improving safety on our surface transportation systems. For example, fatality rates on our highways have fallen from 5.3 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 1965 to 1.4 fatalities per 100 VMT in 2006. But there is much room for improvement. Too many people are still being killed and injured. In 2006, there were more than 42,000 fatalities and 2,500,000 injuries on our highways. This is a national tragedy and, frankly, a national disgrace. We can and must do better. If our goal is to significantly...

Lisa Caruso responded to How Can We Promote Greater Awareness Of Transportation Safety? on November 5, 2009 11:05 AM

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:45:00 GMT

Anne McCartt, senior vice president, research at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety sent us the following post: The problem with distracted driving is not awareness. Surveys show that most people agree that drivers should not use cellphones and drive, even many of those who also admit they do so. The problem is how to make laws effective in changing driver behavior. The cumulative evidence from various types of studies points to cellphone use as a risk factor for crashes and impaired driving performance. While studies have reached different estimates of the magnitude of the risk, well-controlled research that...

Pete Ruane responded to How Can We Promote Greater Awareness Of Transportation Safety? on November 4, 2009 05:12 PM

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:45:00 GMT

“Transportation safety” can mean many things. Reducing fatalities and injuries related to distracted, drunk and drugged driving and the failure to use safety belts all rightly deserve the attention and resources of both federal and state governments, and private user and safety groups. But there is also more we can do. For those of us involved in the transportation infrastructure business, our safety focus is on “both sides of the barrel,” meaning both motorists and industry workers. To promote greater public awareness, and give lawmakers and government officials the latest data on this issue, a group of 28 national construction...

Lisa Caruso responded to How Can We Promote Greater Awareness Of Transportation Safety? on November 4, 2009 04:05 PM

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:45:00 GMT

Transportation Secretary LaHood and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski today annouced a partnership between their agencies to educate the public about the dangers of distracted driving and to look at technologies that could reduce it. Here's a link to what he posted on his blow, the Fast Lane: http://fastlane.dot.gov/ So, what does everyone think of this effort?...

Lisa Caruso responded to How Can We Promote Greater Awareness Of Transportation Safety? on November 4, 2009 03:40 PM

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:45:00 GMT

Roger Wentz, CAE, President and CEO of the American Traffic Safety Services Association, sent us the following response: Commendably, Secretary LaHood has repeatedly stated that safety is the number one priority for U.S.-DOT. But he is right on another point as well. Far too many people die on America’s road; on average, 40,000 individuals die each year in car crashes. Yes, distracted driving is an issue that deserves serious and thoughtful consideration and action in order to reduce distractions and enhance a driver’s ability to focus on the road. However, there is roadway safety infrastructure that can implemented right...

Lisa Caruso responded to How Can We Promote Greater Awareness Of Transportation Safety? on November 4, 2009 11:07 AM

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:45:00 GMT

Dr. Paul Lebow, past president of One Less Car and past president of MADD – Central Maryland, submitted this response: Upon reading the responses to the question Lisa posed, it is evident to me at least that as long as one remains immersed in the present transportation paradigm (i.e. inside “the box”) the best we can do is recycle platitudes. In fact, the current transportation system is the result of a steady evolution from a its ancestral root, the horse and buggy – it is time let go of some of the vestigial characteristics that continue to lead to failing...

Robert L. Crandall responded to How Can We Promote Greater Awareness Of Transportation Safety? on November 4, 2009 07:30 AM

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:45:00 GMT

In recent days, there has been lots of media and public comment about the inexplicable behavior of two Northwest Airline pilots who somehow lost situational awareness and flew 150 miles past their destination before correcting their situation. All the furor is a useful reminder of how the professional pride and conduct of cockpit crews and the legal and regulatory requirements imposed on them by society have made flying increasingly safe. While airline travel has become ever safer, automobile travel continues to be extremely hazardous. Jacqueline Gillan’s recent post makes the point that motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of...

Steve Van Beek responded to How Can We Promote Greater Awareness Of Transportation Safety? on November 4, 2009 05:47 AM

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:45:00 GMT

Secretary LaHood is doing the right thing by speaking out forcefully about distracted driving and flying. Carol Carmody is right, however, to frame the issue in the larger context of human factors (flight and duty time and hours of service are just two of the issues that are important). While the ability of the operator to perform fundamental tasks is certainly impaired by outside distractions introduced into the vehicle such as drinking and texting, performance can also be potentially impaired by distractions that are built into or brought legally in vehicles. These include bluetooth technologies that enable cellphone use, GPS...

Bill Graves responded to How Can We Promote Greater Awareness Of Transportation Safety? on November 2, 2009 04:40 PM

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:45:00 GMT

Anything that takes a person’s eyes off the road, hands off the steering wheel, or mind off of driving poses a safety risk. Using a cell phone or other hand-held electronic device to read or send text messages combines all three actions, posing the highest risk of driver distraction. Over a year ago, trucking industry leaders called the nation’s attention to the dangers of text messaging and cell phone use on the road. The American Trucking Associations (ATA) and its member carriers support a ban on the use of electronic hand-held devices to read, write or send a text message...

Greg Cohen responded to How Can We Promote Greater Awareness Of Transportation Safety? on November 2, 2009 04:26 PM

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:45:00 GMT

Yes – Americans have become complacent about transportation safety and there is no doubt that more must be done by the transportation community to promote greater safety awareness, both on the part of average Americans and among the transportation professionals who are responsible for ensuring the safety of millions of passengers. As Peter Kissinger, President and CEO of the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety promotes, we need to change the traffic safety culture in this country. As Kissinger states on his own blog on traffic safety, findings from this year’s AAA Foundation Traffic Safety Culture Index survey found 80 percent of...

Dennis Christiansen responded to How Can We Promote Greater Awareness Of Transportation Safety? on November 2, 2009 12:10 PM

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:45:00 GMT

As I believe many of my colleagues would agree, the most effective means to promote greater awareness of transportation safety would stem from a combination of actions. Specifically, three steps would produce meaningful progress in the face of one of the most difficult challenges our society currently faces. - Continue to conduct relevant research to better understand the problems we face. To get the right answers, it is essential that we ask the right questions. This is especially true when the issue involves human behavior. At TTI, we have worked for decades to better understand the actions and motivations...

Lisa Caruso responded to How Can We Promote Greater Awareness Of Transportation Safety? on November 2, 2009 11:31 AM

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:45:00 GMT

The New York Times has an interesting story today about the tough approach that Britain is taking to distracted driving. If you haven't read it yet, here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/technology/02texting.html?_r=1&th&emc=th...

Gabriel Roth responded to How Can We Promote Greater Awareness Of Transportation Safety? on November 2, 2009 09:43 AM

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:45:00 GMT

How about a federal mandate abolishing safety belts, and legislating that all steering wheels be equipped with sharp spears pointing at drivers' chests?...

Jacqueline Gillan responded to How Can We Promote Greater Awareness Of Transportation Safety? on November 2, 2009 07:47 AM

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:45:00 GMT

Driver distraction is a growing and serious problem on our nation’s highways. Our vehicles no longer are just a means of transportation but rather have become mobile offices, entertainment enclaves and telecommunications centers. Safety groups like Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) and others have been concerned for years that the rapid introduction and unchecked use of in-vehicle electronic communication devices regularly distracts drivers from the driving task. Rather than being complacent about the risks and dangers of multi-tasking in the car while driving, the American public for the most part has been kept in the dark about the...

Carol J. Carmody responded to How Can We Promote Greater Awareness Of Transportation Safety? on November 2, 2009 07:45 AM

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:45:00 GMT

It is true that Americans are multi-tasking every day – in cars, in grocery stores, in gyms, even in cockpits. While this is a fact of modern life, I do not believe it should be commonplace for operators of vehicles, aircraft, trains, subways. An operator responsible for transporting the public must meet the highest level of safety. Without knowing the full details of the NTSB investigation, or pre-judging its outcome, I had a couple of thoughts as I read about the NW pilots and their “overflight” of their destination. First, no matter how sophisticated the equipment, no matter how redundant...

What Can Private Infrastructure Owners Teach The Public Sector?

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:30:00 GMT

Some transportation infrastructure, such as highways, airports and ports, is mainly owned and operated by governments, while other elements, such as rail lines and pipelines, are mainly owned and run by the private sector. What lessons can the public sector learn from privately held infrastructure about how best to manage, maintain and finance its network of holdings? Are there any lessons that government can impart to the private sector?

Robin Chase responded to What Can Private Infrastructure Owners Teach The Public Sector? on October 30, 2009 04:05 PM

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:30:00 GMT

Gabriel Roth writes "Most of us can walk as much as we want to." In fact, this is not the case, many people would love their children to walk to school but find that the way is too dangerous with inadequate sidewalks and little protection from cars. I hear from people across America who tell me they would like to make more trips by foot or by bike for short distances but find the roads just too unsafe. He also implies that it is cheaper to live in Texas where there hasn't been any smart growth than in Maryland where...

Patrick J. Natale, P.E. responded to What Can Private Infrastructure Owners Teach The Public Sector? on October 30, 2009 02:19 PM

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:30:00 GMT

The business of infrastructure management is, and needs to be, shared between both the public and private sector. Neither the government nor private operators have monopoly on all the good (or bad) ideas. While some may argue that all infrastructure should be owned and managed by just one of these sides, what we should be arguing for is using all methods and means available to make across the board condition improvements to protect the public’s health, safety and welfare. ASCE’s most recent Report Card for America’s Infrastructure graded all categories, including those traditionally operated by private interests, with low grades....

Gabriel Roth responded to What Can Private Infrastructure Owners Teach The Public Sector? on October 29, 2009 04:17 PM

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:30:00 GMT

Governor Glendening is right. The public and private sectors do indeed have “dramatically different goals and priorities”. The private sector seeks to provide services at a profit. So it has to provide what customers wish to pay for. Is that bad? But what does the public sector seek? Glendening mentions “reducing vehicle miles traveled and … focusing on transportation to increase walkability, housing affordability and economic prosperity”. Most of us can walk as much as we want to, without help from government. As for “housing affordability”, there is plenty of evidence that “Smart Growth” policies increase, rather than decrease, accommodation...

Parris N. Glendening responded to What Can Private Infrastructure Owners Teach The Public Sector? on October 29, 2009 11:53 AM

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:30:00 GMT

It is clearly true that both the public and private sectors can learn from one another about financing, building, operating and maintaining our infrastructure. In the tight fiscal times facing the nation today, there are increasing suggestions that the private sector ought to have a far greater role in owning and/or operating infrastructure. The real question, however, is not who learns what from whom, but whether we should we travel much further down this track. The private sector’s bottom line and driving force is profit---an understandable and valid goal. Unfortunately, the public sector has many national and community goals that...

Gabriel Roth responded to What Can Private Infrastructure Owners Teach The Public Sector? on October 28, 2009 05:57 PM

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:30:00 GMT

Robin Chase raises important issues, but would find it difficult to show that the public sector has an advantage in promoting competition. Not only does the Washington Metro, for example, prohibit competition from outsiders, it actually closed down some of its own popular bus services to force travelers to use less convenient rail services. And the reason that Comcast can restrict the use of its services is because the public sector gave it a monopoly. Nor is she right to assert that private providers are interested only in profit. Many of the hundreds of toll roads provided by the private...

Robin Chase responded to What Can Private Infrastructure Owners Teach The Public Sector? on October 27, 2009 02:37 PM

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:30:00 GMT

The ability to maximize the public benefit by requiring openness and flexibility could be a key differentiator between public and private infrastructure if the government took advantage of it. I am unmoved by the claims that the private sector alone can provide a high quality, well-maintained infrastructure. Both public and private institutions can accomplish that. But the willingness and ability to maximize public benefit and participation lies in the public domain alone. The private sector’s goal is to maximize profit and give you exactly what you’ve agreed to pay for. Contractual relationships are constructed to provide a particular prescribed service...

Jack Kinstlinger responded to What Can Private Infrastructure Owners Teach The Public Sector? on October 26, 2009 02:45 PM

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:30:00 GMT

As one who has served in both public and private sectors, I believe there is much each can learn from the other. Public officials must better appreciate the value of time in terms of prompt payment ( delay in payment is a real cost to the vendor), and in terms of prompt project completion. Often the official gives greater weight to the interests of the Agency over the welfare of the public. A case in point, shifting road construction to night hours costs the agency more but this is outweighed by the benefit to the motoring public. The private sector operates...

Jeff Rosen responded to What Can Private Infrastructure Owners Teach The Public Sector? on October 26, 2009 08:37 AM

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:30:00 GMT

Today much of our transportation infrastructure is owned by state and local governments, but some is privately owned and operated. In general, large airports are owned by local or regional governments, transit lines are owned by cities or local government bodies, roads are owned by states or local governments, and so are many ports. By contrast, most rail tracks are owned by private companies, as are most pipelines. (Of course, there are exceptions in both directions. There are privately-operated marine terminals and some private toll roads, for example, and conversely there are some publicly-owned rail tracks.) In addition, outside of...

Balancing Private Investment And Public Interest

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:33:00 GMT

Supporters of public-private partnerships, from conservative former Transportation Secretary Mary Peters to Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Edward Rendell, insist that the next surface transportation bill make it significantly easier for the private sector to invest in infrastructure projects. At the other end of the spectrum, House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar, D-Minn., wants to create an Office of Public Benefit and tough new requirements for tolling and public-private partnerships involving federal roads to make sure that the public interest is protected in deals with private investors.

How can policymakers strike the best balance between ensuring that the public gets a fair deal and making investment in infrastructure projects attractive to private capital? And how much funding for transportation projects is it realistic to expect from the private sector?

Jon Martz responded to Balancing Private Investment And Public Interest on October 27, 2009 03:25 PM

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:33:00 GMT

I think that this question assumes that the only infrastructure projects in question are major projects. There are thousands of smaller scale projects across the country that can, and do, benefit from private investment but that are ignored in the larger conversation around infrastructure financing. Transit Oriented Development (or TOD) is one example of what could be considered private investment in infrastructure, especially where it is a private developer that is financing the construction project for the commercial revenues and the transit service and amenities are built into the project. These projects are working across the country to increase the...

D.J. Gribbin responded to Balancing Private Investment And Public Interest on October 26, 2009 07:25 AM

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:33:00 GMT

Successful public-private partnerships, by their very nature, have to adequately incorporate and serve the public interest. The current debate is less about the need to use P3s to serve the public interest and more about who is best positioned to determine what the public interest is. In considering the public interest, it is critical to keep in mind the backdrop against which P3 transactions are being considered, i.e. traditional government-funded and government-procured projects. Too often P3 transacions are compared against the ideal instead of against the most probable alternative (see Steve Sandherr and Gabriel Roth's comments referencing the politicization of the highway procurement process). ...

Gabriel Roth responded to Balancing Private Investment And Public Interest on October 23, 2009 06:30 PM

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:33:00 GMT

For Professor Ellen Dannin: No! Your generalization is not correct. You seem to have forgotten about the PFI (“Private Finance Initiative”) contracts executed in the UK in the 1980s and 1990s. The private providers assumed all traffic risks, and all cost risks. You and your students can read about them in Chapter 17, by Neil Roden, “Development of Highway Concessions on Trunk Roads in the United Kingdom”, in the award winning Street Smart — Competition, Entrepreneurship and the Future of Roads published in 2006 by Transaction Publishers for the Independent Institute and edited by Gabriel Roth...

Patrick D. Jones responded to Balancing Private Investment And Public Interest on October 23, 2009 02:51 PM

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:33:00 GMT

To Ellen Dannin: Yes, it seems like these contracts are very complicated. Indeed, state and local governments ought to read very carefully any contract they sign to ensure that they are protecting themselves and their constituents against negative outcomes. I am not a lawyer, but I imagine that an agency of government has the same ability to negotiate alternative contract provisions as a private concessionaire does. However, the government also needs to accept that certain contract provisions may reduce the willingness of the private concessionaire to contribute as much money as the government wants. All contract provisions have a price tag, whether it is...

Lisa Caruso responded to Balancing Private Investment And Public Interest on October 23, 2009 12:13 PM

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:33:00 GMT

The following post was submitted byEllen Dannin, the Fannie Weiss Distinguished Faculty Scholar and Professor of Law at Penn State Dickinson School of Law: Claims that infrastructure privatization shifts future financial risk from the public to the private contractor are not correct. That the claims are not correct is apparent to anyone who reads the contracts. Infrastructure privatization contracts are filled with terms that mean money flows from the public to the private contractor when there are lower than anticipated revenues. In fact, these contracts tend to run on for over 100 pages because of all the provisions that...

Patrick J. Natale, P.E. responded to Balancing Private Investment And Public Interest on October 22, 2009 05:17 PM

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:33:00 GMT

As we design and build the transportation system of the future, our financing options are going to have to evolve as well. That’s why ASCE supports the use of Public Private Partnerships (PPPs). They may not be feasible for every project, but PPPs have the potential to fill some of the gaps in our financing system. The surface transportation authorization should expand the opportunities to use PPPs, but steps must be taken to ensure that public interest is protected in these deals and that the financing methods augment, not replace, revenues from user fees. Among the criteria PPPs should address...

Ed Hamberger responded to Balancing Private Investment And Public Interest on October 22, 2009 01:34 PM

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:33:00 GMT

One only needs to look to the successes of the Alameda Corridor in California and the CREATE Program in Chicago to see that the use of public-private partnerships for rail infrastructure projects has been enormously successful in relieving congestion, reducing emissions, jumpstarting economic development and creating a more efficient transportation system. Demand for both freight and passenger rail service will only increase in the coming years and successful partnerships between government and private companies will be critical to meeting this challenge. The FRA Preliminary National Rail Plan released last week was a step in the right direction; recognizing the critical...

Patrick D. Jones responded to Balancing Private Investment And Public Interest on October 21, 2009 05:07 PM

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:33:00 GMT

Bill Graves says, “The United States cannot maintain a national highway network if key segments are owned by Wall Street investment firms or foreign consortia. The only private investment projects that should be considered are those that create new roads, adding greater capacity and mobility as an alternative to already-existing options.” Let’s assume for a minute that we follow Bill’s advice. We allow Wall Street investment firms and foreign consortia to create new roads as an alternative to already-existing options. Let’s also assume that these new roads – which must be toll roads if the Wall Street firms and foreign consortia are...

Patrick D. Jones responded to Balancing Private Investment And Public Interest on October 21, 2009 04:58 PM

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:33:00 GMT

Thank you, Geoff Yarema, for putting your finger on THE CRITICAL QUESTION in this whole debate: “At the same time the federal government is denying sufficient funding to right the ship, should Congress be limiting options available outside the Beltway? Should they be finding an overriding federal interest in objecting to how Sacramento, Austin, Richmond or Tallahassee elects to solve their difficult problems, despite the responsiveness to their electorate?” Amen. Don’t let the Feds stand in the way of state and local innovation that supports the federal goal of increased mobility and accessibility. All of the highway authorization laws in the last two...

Geoffrey S. Yarema responded to Balancing Private Investment And Public Interest on October 21, 2009 01:08 PM

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:33:00 GMT

The question of protecting the public interest while attracting private capital for public-private partnerships is an important question. I recommend looking at the issue from the perspective of a state or regional policymaker, those people in this country primarily charged with infrastructure stewardship and faced with increasingly difficult decisions. In the midst of a serious recession, compounded by an uncertain federal reauthorization, is it in the public interest for state and regional officials to continue to forego much needed maintenance in order to fund for new capacity? Is it in the public interest to continue deferring new capacity projects with the attendant...

Gabriel Roth responded to Balancing Private Investment And Public Interest on October 21, 2009 12:37 PM

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:33:00 GMT

Mary Peters is correct to identify private investment as “not just a way to fund projects”, but also “as a program delivery strategy deployed on the right projects.” But she is too polite to challenge the premise of this week’s question, that “the public interest” needs to be protected from “private investment”. While private investment can be misguided, even corrupt, the more urgent need today is to protect the public from errors in public investment, which can also be misguided and corrupt. Private investment in transport projects is generally preferable because it has to respond to customers’ willingness to pay....

Bill Graves responded to Balancing Private Investment And Public Interest on October 20, 2009 05:42 PM

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:33:00 GMT

By 2020, ATA expects that overall freight tonnage will increase by more than 26 percent with the modal share moved by truck increasing to 71 percent. It’s no secret that our nation needs a tremendous investment in infrastructure to handle the increased demands that will be placed on our highways. As we work toward the next highway authorization bill, it’s important that we protect American taxpayers by ensuring that they get the greatest value from their investment as our nation moves forward with long-term transportation plans. I share Chairman Oberstar’s sentiments and believe that that we must be very wary...

Lisa Mullings responded to Balancing Private Investment And Public Interest on October 20, 2009 05:24 PM

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:33:00 GMT

Given the substantial gap between the need for transportation investment and current (and even future) revenues, there is no question the private sector will play a significant role in helping us meet our funding needs. However, it is critical that officials at the federal, state and local levels focus on the impact any public-private partnership has on all stakeholders. Chairman Oberstar’s proposal to establish an Office of Public Benefit within the Department of Transportation is a step in the right direction. Currently, there are few mechanisms in place to ensure the public interest is protected when the government enters into...

Steve Sandherr responded to Balancing Private Investment And Public Interest on October 20, 2009 03:25 PM

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:33:00 GMT

There's no doubt public private partnerships must, and will, play a significant role in financing vital transportation projects. Especially is densely populated urban and suburban areas with the potential for sustainable toll revenues, we need to make it easier for privately funded projects to supplement existing sources of transportation revenue. That is why our construction industry recovery plan, "Build Now for the Future,", calls on Congress and the Administration to eliminate barriers to public private partnerships by giving states greater flexibility to allow for tolling. Municipalities also should be able to more easily privatize airports and accept private investments in transit. ...

Phineas Baxandall responded to Balancing Private Investment And Public Interest on October 20, 2009 01:33 PM

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:33:00 GMT

The most pressing issues concerning private investment in infrastructure aren't about how easy it should be, but how much the public should give up in return. While the business models for private investment in high speed rail and transit oriented development are still emerging, most private money has gone to toll road concessions. As our research has shown, the public has tended to give up far too much. The public has lost out in four ways: (1) The cost of tolls promised to private investors tends to exceed the costs of public borrowing due to companies’ higher capital costs...

Bob Poole responded to Balancing Private Investment And Public Interest on October 20, 2009 09:31 AM

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:33:00 GMT

States, not the Feds, Should Protect the Public Interest in PPPs While I am largely in agreement with both Mary Peters and Greg Cohen on the importance of PPPs and protecting the public interest, neither adequately addressed the key question as we move into debating surface transportation reauthorization: What is the appropriate role of the federal government on this question? Chairman Oberstar’s bill, with its creation of an Office of Public Benefit, would greatly expand the federal government’s role, not only in PPPs but also in tolling, by creating what amounts to a tolling-and-PPP czar at US DOT. This position...

Greg Cohen responded to Balancing Private Investment And Public Interest on October 19, 2009 01:29 PM

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:33:00 GMT

I am in complete agreement with Secretary Peters’ excellent post. From the motorists’ perspective, however, some additional public interest protections are important. It is logical that private investors would only consider spending capital on projects that are expected to have a good return. With most PPPs, highway users are expected to provide that return over time. So it is important that highway users’ such as the local AAA club, trucking association, local business group, and state highway users federation are well represented in PPP negotiations. PPPs are diverse and some deserve the support of motorists – particularly when they enable a road to...

Mary Peters responded to Balancing Private Investment And Public Interest on October 19, 2009 07:34 AM

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:33:00 GMT

Attracting private investment is crucial to help meet the significant and growing demand for transportation infrastructure in America, especially at a time when traditional methods of funding those requirements is no longer sufficient nor sustainable. Private investment is not just a way to fund projects, however, it should be seen as a program delivery strategy deployed on the right projects. Policymakers can ensure the public gets a fair deal by taking steps to protect the public interest in the agreements. They can also ensure investment in infrastructure projects is attractive to private capital by appropriately defining and assigning risk in...

Should Scope Of Surface Transportation Policy Grow Or Shrink?

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:24:00 GMT

In an interview last week with NationalJournal.com, former Transportation Secretary Mary Peters suggested that rather than increasing the fuels tax to pay for a larger surface transportation program, policymakers should keep gas tax revenues constant, allow states and localities greater freedom to pursue private financing for infrastructure projects, and shrink the program to focus on core national priorities. Transportation experts are nearly unanimous in agreeing that federal surface transportation policy should make national (and regional) needs its top priority -- but many also support a substantially more expensive program of roughly $500 billion over six years (compared to the $286 billion provided in the last six-year authorization).

Has the time come to limit the scope and spending of the federal program, or does the next surface transportation bill require more money and a wider, if still nationally focused, approach?

Deron Lovaas responded to Should Scope Of Surface Transportation Policy Grow Or Shrink? on October 16, 2009 03:43 PM

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:24:00 GMT

First let me say that I'm an admirer of Mary Peters. She has a lot of good ideas, including a broad focus on policy that would affect demand for, and not just supply of, transportation services. This translates to a relentless focus on efficiency of the system, something that's desperately needed. To her credit, she also has a clear vision for the system's future, and has consistently driven towards fulfillment of the vision. However, for reasons stated by others on this blog (such as Parris Glendening), while there are useful components to her vision that should be incorporated into a...

Mortimer L. Downey responded to Should Scope Of Surface Transportation Policy Grow Or Shrink? on October 16, 2009 02:39 PM

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:24:00 GMT

First, let me agree with Steve Heminger--we can't let an arbitrary sum of dollars drive our thinking about the scope of a federal transportation program--whether that sum is what we now have available, or what we think might be raised in the future. And then, I want to take a comment from Ken Orski, who picked up on the point made at the Miller Center conference about "federal role" vs "federal interest," but take that idea in a different direction. One thing we have learned over the years is how much transportation affects a number of issues we care about. ...

Patrick J. Natale, P.E. responded to Should Scope Of Surface Transportation Policy Grow Or Shrink? on October 15, 2009 03:15 PM

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:24:00 GMT

There was a time in the nation’s history when the federal government led the way in building some of our greatest infrastructure systems, but since then federal leadership has decreased and the condition of the nation's infrastructure suffered. Correcting those decades of underinvestment and lack of maintenance is going to require a strong, national vision, which is why ASCE included increased federal leadership as the first of our five key solutions in 2009 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure. While the actual amount spent on public infrastructure continues to increase, this investment as a share of GDP is in decline—from a...

Bill Graves responded to Should Scope Of Surface Transportation Policy Grow Or Shrink? on October 14, 2009 05:09 PM

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:24:00 GMT

It’s paramount that the next surface transportation authorization bill maintains a strong federal role and provide for the creation of a national freight program. The success of our nation’s economy relies largely on the transportation of freight, and ATA predicts that total U.S. freight tonnage will increase by 26 percent by 2020. Trucks deliver nearly 100 percent of consumer goods and about 70 percent of overall freight tonnage in the United States. Economists predict this trend will continue, so we must expand and repair the aging National Highway System to meet these demands. ATA supports funding this expansion by increasing...

Gabriel Roth responded to Should Scope Of Surface Transportation Policy Grow Or Shrink? on October 14, 2009 04:57 PM

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:24:00 GMT

How right Ken Orski is to distinguish between a federal “interest” and a federal “role”. There is a federal “interest” in food being good for us, but it does not follow that there should be a federal “role” in the actual provision of food. Food stamps can be provided to those unable to afford food, but it does not follow that governments should finance, establish or operate food stores. Since the completion of the Interstate Highway System, the federal financing role in surface transport has been conspicuous by its irrelevance to “core national priorities”. What has the Obama administration done...

James Corless responded to Should Scope Of Surface Transportation Policy Grow Or Shrink? on October 14, 2009 04:36 PM

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:24:00 GMT

This, of course, is a fundamental question and one that deserves more discussion than it usually gets. As Steve Heminger notes, the public is likely to have little appetite for spending a half-billion dollars absent a clear picture of what they will get for it. Without trying to give a complete answer in a quick post, here are a few thoughts: Nearly everyone seems to agree that the existing federal program, begun under President Eisenhower in 1956, has run its course. The Eisenhower program’s urgent goal was to induce states to build a national highway network to connect our...

David A. Raymond responded to Should Scope Of Surface Transportation Policy Grow Or Shrink? on October 14, 2009 04:03 PM

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:24:00 GMT

It is ironic to me that at a time when both Republicans and Democrats appear ready to pass a highway bill, the Administration wants to put it off and we are debating the relative merits of private investment vs. federal funding when we know that both are required in ever-greater magnitudes. The fact is that highway bills are among the few bills that both parties in Congress have long believed merit strong federal funding. And at a time when the economy suffers an employment downtown, both parties believe that highway bills offer real stimulus for job-creation. No one would argue...

Parris N. Glendening responded to Should Scope Of Surface Transportation Policy Grow Or Shrink? on October 14, 2009 02:59 PM

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:24:00 GMT

The United States spends a small fraction of what would be considered an average competitive investment in transportation infrastructure. We are far behind other players in the global economy, such as China and Canada, on this issue. To continue to be competitive in a global economy the United States must invest in our transportation infrastructure. A program with a budget that falls under $300 billion will not be enough to maintain the existing infrastructure, let alone pursue new projects. We must reauthorize at least $500 billion over the next six years if we are to fix existing roads, bridges and...

Jack Kinstlinger responded to Should Scope Of Surface Transportation Policy Grow Or Shrink? on October 14, 2009 11:39 AM

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:24:00 GMT

Much as I admire and respect Secretary Peters, I cannot wholly agree with her position. First, while tolls and private financing are valuable, their use is limited to high density corridors, The unavoidable truth is that we need significant increase in user fees- gas tax at present and VM fees in the future.These fees were not controversial in the past but have become politicized now. If we create a compelling vision and tie spending to perfomance, we will regain credibility.With the united front of AASHTO, contrractor and designer groups and users and business, the time to press forward is now.The issue...

Steve Van Beek responded to Should Scope Of Surface Transportation Policy Grow Or Shrink? on October 14, 2009 07:54 AM

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:24:00 GMT

To her credit, former Secretary Mary Peters offers an intellectually honest view, yet I believe ultimately a flawed one, for how our nation should deal with the financial and policy crises we have across our transportation system. The “federal interest requirements” she discussed during the Bush Administration (and reiterated during the interview) leave little room for the public parts of our system where privatization, long-term leases and concession income are insufficient to pay the capital and operating parts of our system. After all, if they could, the private sector would already be operating them profitably and we would not have public...

John Horsley responded to Should Scope Of Surface Transportation Policy Grow Or Shrink? on October 13, 2009 04:59 PM

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:24:00 GMT

The question of whether the federal government should largely abandon its responsibility for a national transportation system has already been answered by two bipartisan national commissions – one of which Sec. Peters chaired and provided a minority report reflecting the position she advocated in her recent interview – and by the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. Both commissions found that the nation’s aging infrastructure is in crisis and that the future economic health of our country depends on sustained and pro-active investment in our transportation systems. In fact, chronic underfunding of our current transportation system has led us to...

Bob Poole responded to Should Scope Of Surface Transportation Policy Grow Or Shrink? on October 13, 2009 12:04 PM

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:24:00 GMT

Reducing Scope Could Restore Confidence in Federal Program It’s not only Mary Peters who has concluded that the federal surface transportation program has lost its way, increasingly evolving into a politicized public-works program. That was the conclusion of a March 2008 GAO report (GAO-08-400) as well as the Policy and Revenue Commission. But while the latter claimed to be streamlining and simplifying the program, it actually called for significantly expanding its scope to encompass inter-city rail, environment, and energy programs, in addition to expanding federal transit assistance to cities and towns of all sizes. That’s also what Chairman Oberstar...

Steve Heminger responded to Should Scope Of Surface Transportation Policy Grow Or Shrink? on October 13, 2009 12:00 PM

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:24:00 GMT

This is the toughest question in the whole debate about the future direction of the federal surface transportation program: what are the "core national priorities" that the program ought to pursue? During the Interstate era, the purpose of the federal program was quite clear: connect the population and manufacturing centers of the nation with a network of grade-separated highways. In the post-Interstate era (which we entered some 20 years ago), the mission of the federal program is muddled at best. The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission on which I served struggled with this question throughout our early...

Ken Orski responded to Should Scope Of Surface Transportation Policy Grow Or Shrink? on October 13, 2009 07:25 AM

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:24:00 GMT

In considering the future of the surface transportation program most of the attention has focused on the “supply” or revenue side: how to pay for the program. In her interview with National Journal’s Lisa Caruso (“Bush DOT Chief Discusses Reauthorization,” Insider Interview, October 8) former Transportation Secretary Mary Peters has reminded us that we also must look more closely at the “demand” side. She suggested that the time may have come when we should limit the scope and size of the federal-aid program to activities and investments “that are truly in the federal interest.” Over the years the federal surface...

How Should Planners Promote Livable Communities?

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:39:00 GMT

The Obama administration and leading congressional Democrats appear to be making the creation of "livable communities" -- where residents have better access to affordable housing, public transportation and employment options -- a central transportation policy goal.

In June, the administration launched a Partnership for Sustainable Communities and six "livability principles" for coordinating policy across the Department of Transportation, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., whose panel has jurisdiction over mass transit programs, in August introduced his own Livable Communities Act, while House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar, D-Minn., made livability one of the key objectives of the surface transportation reauthorization bill he unveiled in June.

Given this increasing focus on promoting livability, what can transportation and urban planners and others in the transportation sector do to promote greater interconnection of affordable housing and transportation options? What role, if any, is appropriate for the federal government to play?

Jon Martz responded to How Should Planners Promote Livable Communities? on October 15, 2009 11:44 AM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:39:00 GMT

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...

Jeff Rosen responded to How Should Planners Promote Livable Communities? on October 10, 2009 11:52 PM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:39:00 GMT

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...

Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore. responded to How Should Planners Promote Livable Communities? on October 8, 2009 02:34 PM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:39:00 GMT

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...

Lisa Caruso responded to How Should Planners Promote Livable Communities? on October 8, 2009 12:00 PM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:39:00 GMT

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...

Ed Hamberger responded to How Should Planners Promote Livable Communities? on October 8, 2009 11:33 AM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:39:00 GMT

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...

Lisa Caruso responded to How Should Planners Promote Livable Communities? on October 8, 2009 09:55 AM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:39:00 GMT

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...

Deron Lovaas responded to How Should Planners Promote Livable Communities? on October 7, 2009 12:41 PM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:39:00 GMT

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...

Ken Orski responded to How Should Planners Promote Livable Communities? on October 7, 2009 12:12 PM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:39:00 GMT

"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...

Gabriel Roth responded to How Should Planners Promote Livable Communities? on October 6, 2009 09:01 PM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:39:00 GMT

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...

James Corless responded to How Should Planners Promote Livable Communities? on October 6, 2009 06:07 PM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:39:00 GMT

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...

Patrick J. Natale, P.E. responded to How Should Planners Promote Livable Communities? on October 6, 2009 04:39 PM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:39:00 GMT

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...

Lisa Caruso responded to How Should Planners Promote Livable Communities? on October 6, 2009 03:18 PM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:39:00 GMT

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...

Steve Heminger responded to How Should Planners Promote Livable Communities? on October 6, 2009 10:55 AM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:39:00 GMT

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....

Rich Sarles responded to How Should Planners Promote Livable Communities? on October 5, 2009 03:36 PM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:39:00 GMT

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...

Greg Cohen responded to How Should Planners Promote Livable Communities? on October 5, 2009 02:30 PM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:39:00 GMT

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...

Nancy LeaMond responded to How Should Planners Promote Livable Communities? on October 5, 2009 07:42 AM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:39:00 GMT

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....

Parris N. Glendening responded to How Should Planners Promote Livable Communities? on October 5, 2009 07:41 AM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:39:00 GMT

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...