The Nov. 2 Metro article “Study calls Md. smart growth a flop” leads to an inescapable conclusion: We in Maryland need to do more — more to create walkable neighborhoods, more to give people transportation choices, more to save tax money and more to protect the Chesapeake Bay.

But the misleading headline did a disservice. What the study really found is that the policies I instituted as governor haven’t been enough. It’s true: Maryland’s work is not done. Our laws and programs should be updated as we learn what works best. But the study doesn’t call the Maryland programs a “flop.”

Despite the need to improve and strengthen the policies, smart growth has done a great deal for Maryland. It placed the social services building right in downtown Easton and aided the University of Maryland’s efforts to revitalize Hagerstown. It permanently preserved 400,000 acres. And it helped revitalize places such as Silver Spring, Hyattsville and Baltimore, adding thousands of homes to transit-accessible neighborhoods. Because the study looked only at single-family homes, it couldn’t report any of these benefits.

Today, it’s more important than ever that government policies don’t promote sprawl but instead help communities meet the demand for more convenient, affordable neighborhoods. And improving the smart-growth program should be a key part of Maryland’s plans.

Richard Hall, the Maryland secretary of planning, writes that Maryland is working hard to fully realize Governor Glendening’s plans. “No doubt we have smart-growth challenges that we need to address together,” he said. “We are developing a State Growth Plan for this purpose. Maryland’s commitment to, and innovation in, smart growth remain strong.”

(This post was written by National Vacant Properties Campaign intern Ryan Kraske.)

Over fifty people gathered on Capitol Hill last Thursday in support of new legislation that would strengthen cities and metropolitan areas that have experienced large-scale property vacancy and abandonment. The Community Regeneration, Sustainability, and Innovation Act of 2009 would empower these communities and give them the opportunity to turn the tables on the problems created by abandonment and creatively reshape the environment for healthier, more economically competitive and sustainable neighborhoods.

The speakers agreed: the federal government needs to renew its commitment to work in partnership with these older industrial cities and regions as they work to make themselves stronger for the future.

The bill’s sponsors, Congressman Tim Ryan and Congressman Brian Higgins, spoke about the challenges and lack of resources available to the many cities like their hometowns of Youngstown, Oh., and Buffalo, N.Y., that have long suffered from sustained population losses and high property vacancy and abandonment rates. Under the new legislation, these struggling cities could adapt innovative policies and systematic changes they need to become healthy and vibrant.  New links between planning, capacity building, and revitalization programs can turn community blight into urban agriculture systems, energy producing fields, and new job opportunities (to name a few.)

Terry Gillen of the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority (PRA) spoke about the high financial cost imposed by vacant and abandoned properties, many of which are tax delinquent and privately owned. She pointed out how new tools must be made available in these regions to help identify the best strategies to encourage the private market to better manage its assets and help identify where areas of strength and opportunity lie (such as through regional information systems), and to more effectively acquire, manage, and hold properties until redevelopment needs catch up with the land supply (such as through a land banking program.)

Phil Kidd, a community organizer from the Mahoning Valley Organizing Project in Ohio, carried not only his own message of the urgent need for a new approach to community revitalization in cities big and small (Youngstown’s population hovers around 80,000) but also delivered an inspiring video made by a 20-year old student from Youngstown. The video depicted the town’s remarkable industrial history and transformation through neighborhood based organizing, university investments, and entrepreneurship. Read more information about the feature-length documentary, “Steel Valley: Meltdown.” Mr. Kidd emphasized the progress he sees coming from the region but acknowledged that they need help raising the capacity among the government, nonprofits, and other partners in making real change happen.

The Regeneration Act would have a significant impact on cities like Youngstown, Buffalo, and others that have lost significant population and are challenged with high long-term vacancy rates. Using performance-based standards, the Act would give local communities the resources and technical assistance to create a regeneration plan tailored to local conditions, in places that have long lacked the resources they need.  Please show your support by asking your Representative to co-sponsor the Regeneration Act.

Find out more about the Regeneration Act at http://www.vacantproperties.org/CRSI.html

The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733) would set aside an average of 2.4 percent of revenues generated by the Act each year to help states and metropolitan areas reduce greenhouse gas emissions as they grow and change in the years to come. Half of the funds would support a competitive grants program for transportation projects and smart growth strategies that help reduce emissions and the planning needed to better account for and curb emissions. The other half would support the expansion of public transportation.

“That the Senate mark more than doubles the amount the House bill would dedicate to clean transportation options represents major progress for communities across America,” said Geoff Anderson, president of Smart Growth America and co-chair of the Transportation for America coalition. “Senators Boxer and John Kerry (D-MA) the primary authors, deserve enormous credit for recognizing the role that reduced transportation emissions must play, and for including measures that will help create affordable options as oil supplies tighten and fuel prices rise in the years ahead.”

The Act substantially incorporates language from a separate bill known as CLEAN-TEA, sponsored by Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) and Arlen Specter (D-PA) and co-sponsored by senators Michael Bennet (D-CO), Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Bill Nelson (D-FL). The CLEAN-TEA sponsors’ support was critical in securing meaningful transportation provisions in the Senate bill.

“Transportation contributes nearly one-third of the total annual climate-harming emissions in the U.S., and has to be a key part of the solution,” said James Corless, director of Transportation for America. “S. 1733 contains common-sense policies and funding that promise cleaner, safer and more affordable transportation options for all Americans, and will help create green jobs.  As the bill moves through the Senate and the understanding of the importance of clean transportation grows, our coalition hopes to see a funding level closer to 5 percent of revenues. We urge members of the Senate to unite behind this essential legislation.”

###

This has been released jointly with TRANSPORTATION FOR AMERICA, a broad coalition of housing, environmental, equal opportunity, public health, urban planning, transportation and other organizations focused on creating a 21st century national transportation program. The coalition’s goal is to build a modernized infrastructure and healthy communities where people can live, work and play by aligning national, state, and local transportation policies with an array of issues like economic opportunity, climate change, energy security, health, housing and community development. www.t4america.org

If you’re in the DC area next week, stop into a Congressional Briefing on H.R. 932, the Community Regeneration, Sustainability, and Innovation Act.  Speakers will include:

• Mary Cronin of the Northeast-Midwest Congressional Coalition
• Phil Kidd of the Mahoning Valley Organizing Project
• Terry Gillen of the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority
• Joe Schilling of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech
• Smart Growth America’s Jennifer Leonard of the National Vacant Properties Campaign

The hearing will take place on Thursday, October 29th at 2:30 in the Rayburn House Office Building Room 2253. Hope to see you there!

We will still offer regular opportunities to weigh in on important legislation, whether or not you choose to get knee deep into the details of policy.

- Stephen Davis
Communications Associate

Hearing schedule announced for Senate climate bill, markup expected in November

After some delay, hearings on the Senate climate bill introduced last month by Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) are scheduled to begin the last week of October. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is currently reviewing the legislation, but its analysis is expected to be completed before the start of the hearings. A markup of the legislation is expected sometime in November, although a week of recess for Veterans Day and another week for Thanksgiving limit the amount of time available in the schedule.

The first hearing on the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S.1733) is scheduled for October 27 with a prominent panel appearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Witnesses at the first hearing will include Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, and Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Hearings are expected to continue on October 28 and 29, but witnesses have not yet been announced.

There is still time to ensure that the bill includes significant funding for clean transportation options such as public transportation and passenger rail, affordable neighborhoods around transit stops, and neighborhood projects that increase safety for cyclists and pedestrians.

TAKE ACTION by calling or sending an email to your Senator today.

Another stopgap resolution likely before appropriations work complete; no agreement yet on Interior-EPA or transport-housing bills

Last month, Congress approved a one-month stopgap resolution (Continuing Resolution, or CR) to extend government funding at FY 2009 levels until the end of October.  House appropriators are beginning work on a second continuing resolution, as it looks increasingly unlikely that the twelve annual appropriations bills will be completed in the next two weeks. Details on the duration of another continuing resolution have yet to be released.

The FY 2010 Interior-Environment spending bill, which includes funding for the EPA Smart Growth Office and many other key programs is said to be at least a week away from a conference agreement.  An agreement on the FY 2010 Transportation-HUD spending bill is possibly further outha, as there are differences in various spending levels to be worked out, as well as a disputed effort to exempt Great Lakes shipping from proposed EPA rules regulating emissions from oceangoing ships that operate on the Great Lakes.

House committee examines high-speed rail challenges

Last week, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee took a look at some of the challenges facing the development of a high-speed rail network.  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 included $8 billion for high-speed rail. In the FY 2010 budget request, the Obama Administration made it clear that high-speed rail is a priority for them by requesting a total of $5 billion in additional funding over the next five years. Although the initial $8 billion was to be distributed for shovel-ready projects, not a cent has been granted to date.

During the hearing several lawmakers spoke on the need for true high-speed rail of 110 miles per hour or more and not just improvement to speeds of 70-90 miles per hour.  Federal Railroad Administrator Joseph Szabo cautioned that a complete network of high-speed rail includes service of varying speeds, not just trains going 200 mph.  Szabo explained that the FRA received requests for more than $50 billion in funding for long-term projects and about $7 billion in shovel-ready and planning projects.  Rather than rush to distribute quickly, the agency has chosen to spend more time evaluating how the money can best be spent. For this reason, funding will not be granted until next year and it is unlikely that the money will be limited to shovel-ready projects.

EPA releases the Clean Water Action Enforcement Plan,  Administrator testifies before House committee

On Thursday, EPA Administrator appeared before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to discuss the release of the Clean Water Action Enforcement Plan, which details how the agency plans to improve enforcement of clean water laws.   According to Jackson’s testimony, the three main goals of the report are to target enforcement to the most important water pollution problems, strengthen oversight of the states, and improve transparency and accountability.

A recent investigation found that a miniscule amount of Clean Water Act violators are punished by the states and that the EPA frequently chooses not to force states to comply or prosecute offenders.  Overall, the largest reason cited for EPA’s enforcement failure is poor coordination and a lack of data about inconsistencies.

Representative Blumenauer announces Livable Communities Task Force, adding Congressional component to Administration initiative.

Congressman Blumenauer in partnership with the House Democratic Caucus announced the launch of the Livable Communities Task Force.  The task force will promote policies and legislation to make the federal government a strong supporter of local efforts to link transportation, housing and land use strategies to create sustainable, livable communities. Congressman Blumenauer described the work of the Task Force in a statement released today: “With a diverse group of members from around the country, this new Democratic Task Force will play a vital role in coordinating with the administration to improve the quality of life for millions of Americans in communities big and small, urban and rural.” More information can be found on the LCTF website.

Current Livable Communities Task Force Members: Earl Blumenauer (OR), Sam Farr (CA), Rush Holt (NJ), Doris Matsui (A), Jim McDermott (WA), Richard Neal (MA), Tim Ryan (OH), Allyson Schwartz (PA), Dina Titus (NV), Paul Tonko (NY), Peter Welch (VT), George Miller (CA), Martin Heinrich (NM), Lois Capps (CA), Andre Carson (IN), Hank Johnson (GA), Albio Sires (NJ), John Olver (MA), Russ Carnahan (MO).

From Jay Corbalis of Smart Growth America coalition partner New Jersey Future, here is a look at some key aspects of New Jersey and smart growth in the last 20 years. (Check out their new blog called Garden State Smart Growth to learn more about what New Jersey and its residents want for the next 20 years.)

• After four decades of population loss, New Jersey’s eight urban centers, as designated in the State Development and Redevelopment Plan, reversed course and resumed growing in the 1990s, though at a rate less than one-eighth that of the rest of the state. They further rebounded to about a quarter of the statewide growth rate between 2000 and 2008.

• Residents in 30 of the state’s most distressed cities (as identified by the Housing and Community Development Network’s “Cities in Transition” study) remain poor, on average, with a combined per-capita income half that of the statewide average — and less than one-sixth that of the state’s 30 wealthiest municipalities. Their collective unemployment rate was 8.6 percent in 2008, compared to 5.5 percent statewide.

• Between 1995 and 2002, a total of 54,000 acres of land were developed in areas designated primarily for conservation by the State Plan. This is an area nearly the size of Union County.

• Only 5 percent of people who work in New Jersey (i.e., excluding commuters to New York and Philadelphia) ride transit to work, which is no better than the national average. New jobs in New Jersey have been appearing predominantly in places not easily accessible by transit (e.g., Parsippany, Bridgewater, Mount Laurel), while they have been disappearing from transit-friendly locations such as Newark, Elizabeth and Camden.

If you need more New Jersey in your life, this week the Sundance channel is re-airing their celebrated 5-part documentary “Brick City” about revitalization efforts in troubled Newark.  (I missed the documentary the first time around, but I’ve heard great things.)  Newark’s history of poverty and violence goes back to the riots in 1967; its corruption ran so rampant that the last three mayors were indicted on criminal charges.  Mayor Cory Booker has been doing some astounding things in an embattled city. (Read a profile of Booker in Next American City.)

Last year, for instance, its homicide rates decreased by more than 30 percent.  As a New Jersey native, I can only hope that both Newark and New Jersey continue to make these great strides towards a better, smarter future.

We wrote last week about how you should tell your Senator to put more funding for clean transportation in the climate bill.  Here’s a few more details:

Last Wednesday, Senator Barbara Boxer of California and Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts released their version of the climate bill, “The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act.” It was somewhat more ambitious than its counterpart in the House, requiring a 20 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2020.

These are strong measures, and the Kerry-Boxer bill tops the House’s 2020 goals by a full 3%.  According to the Washington Post,

“This is our time,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, who held a rally on the East Front of the Capitol before a huge American flag and a group of veterans, clean-energy entrepreneurs, and state and local lawmakers. “Global warming is our challenge.”

The Senate bill would require states and metropolitan planning organizations to make plans for reducing transportation-related emissions, and then require them to spend a small amount of their cap-and-trade revenues on cleaner transport options that can help them meet those targets. (If you’d like to see all the wonky details on smart-growth and transportation in the climate bill, it can be found on the SGA Action page.) The framework for reducing emissions from transportation is strong, but there is some concern over how strong it can be if it is inadequately funded.

While the Senate bill doesn’t currently contain exact numbers, the House version returns up to just 1 percent of all revenues to invest in things like public transportation, vanpooling, and bicycle and pedestrian projects. And that one percent of spending is optional, not required. In the Senate version, the percentage will be required, but the percentage (1%, 2%?) is yet to be established.

Tell your senators; if we are serious about meeting the challenge of climate change, clean transportation must be a bigger part of our solution.

The major focus of the Boxer-Kerry bill is the establishment of a carbon allowance trading market in the business and industrial world. Considering how much of our greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation (33%), the attention — and funding — given to reducing transportation’s share of greenhouse gas emissions is wildly inadequate.

The results are in — and the Senate has chosen to support clean transportation.  They allocated 2.4% of climate bill revenues towards smart growth and clean transportation — more than double what the House offered.

Tell your Senators to support the Boxer-Kerry bill, and to protect their investment in clean, affordable transportation alternatives.

Portland continued their national dominance of percentage of people who ride bikes, jumping all the way from 4.2% to 6.4% in one year. The city has invested in making biking safer and more attractive, which has paid off with more people biking, fewer cars on the road and cleaner air. With biking growing in popularity each year, scores of enterprising people have started bike-related businesses to ride the rising tide of bike culture in the city.

One enterprising Portland realtor combined the growing demand for homes in convenient locations with Portland’s biking fervor to boost her bottom line — filling a niche that was previously empty. When Portlanders want to buy a home that lets them bike to the office, the grocery store, or the post office, they call Kirsten Kaufman, whom Portland Live calls the “Bike Broker.”

Riding around Portland on her custom-built bicycle, she showcases homes that provide easy access by bike, by foot, and by public transportation — that is to say, the kinds of homes that more people want these days, but that other Realtors might not think to showcase. Kaufman has capitalized on the fact that convenience, short commutes, and access to the community without having to drive everywhere is as much a marketable selling point as good schools or low crime with a growing segment of homebuyers.

Riding on bicycle also gives her a better sense of the neighborhoods she’s selling in.  Of her strategy, Kaufman says:

“I started doing focus groups by showing homes by bike to cycling advocates. All of the feedback I got was positive. Once I actively started marketing to people who want to drive less, my business increased. This year versus last year, I’ve almost doubled my business in the worst real estate market ever. I took that to mean it was a good idea.”

Doubled her business? Sounds like she’s onto something.

For 17 straight years, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has failed to meet their own, not-remarkably-ambitious hiring goals: that at least 11% of their workforce should be people of color and at least 6% should be women.  (Minnesota is 85% white, though not 94% male.)

The economic stimulus was meant to benefit everyone in hard economic times, partially through job creation in the transportation sector. African-Americans are hit disproportionately by job losses in a recession, but in Minnesota they haven’t received the full benefit from the stimulus money, an investment meant to aid everyone.

The Alliance for Metropolitan Stability, one of Smart Growth America’s partners examining state stimulus spending, has been working as part of a large coalition of 70 groups called HIRE Minnesota (or HIRE-MN) to ensure equity for low income communities and communities of color, not just in allocation of the stimulus money, but to ensure that people of color and low-income people get more opportunities to train for family-supporting jobs in infrastructure and green-collar work.

HIRE-MN includes social justice organizations, environmental organizations, political organizations, grassroots organizations, and training organizations.

Recently, HIRE-MN has been showcasing the lack of attention paid to MnDOT’s “old boy’s club” hiring practices, and, more broadly, how this means the stimulus funds are not getting distributed equitably.

Last week, HIRE-MN showed up at a Department of Transportation worksite on a “missing-persons search party” for the women and people of color “missing” from the workers. Next week they have planned a funeral for the construction season, and for the lost chance for MnDOT to get it right — though HIRE-MN still hopes 2010 will be a better year for getting more women and people of color into MnDOT’s ranks.

“There’s been a lot of talk about the benefit of the stimulus,” said Jennifer Jimenez-Wheatley, an organizer and researcher for Alliance for Metropolitan Stability.  “We want to make sure these investments don’t bypass us.”

Also this year, HIRE-MN organized five town hall meetings, which culminated a rally at the Capitol to ask that legislators specifically grant low-income people and people of color opportunities with stimulus money.

A state legislator noted the impressive size of the crowd and how it differed from the usual Capitol day-to-day scene. “I’ve never seen so many people here not in suits,” he reportedly said.

All told, about 2000 community members were involved. Due in large part to the work of HIRE-MN, the Minnesota legislature allocated $1 million for training of low-income people for weatherization jobs (the stimulus is the largest weatherization program in history), $1 million for training of low-income people for other renewable energy jobs, and $500,000 for programs to perform outreach in the community — for a grand total of $2.5 million. HIRE-MN is currently watching the spending carefully to make sure that the money is allocated properly on the ground.

“For many low income communities and communities of color, even as change occurs they’ve always been left behind,” said Jimenez-Wheatley. “They’ve been shut out of the benefits.  So we were coming for that point of view: if change is coming, then we want the real change. If Obama is talking about green jobs, then we want to make sure low-income communities and communities of color are part of that.  We’re not going to be shut out again.”

Two years ago, Smart Growth America and a number of other organizations collaborated on a report called Growing Cooler which similarly demonstrated the impact of our built environment on curbing climate change. However, Growing Cooler’s findings showed that the built environment’s impact on the environment was far greater than the conclusions of the National Academies’ report.

Reid Ewing, Arthur C. Nelson, and Keith Bartholomew of the University of Utah’s Metropolitan Research Center (none of whom work for Smart Growth America) have issued a response to the authors of the National Academies report detailing how their original numbers remain more valid than the “moderate” findings of the new report. They were kind enough to allow us to post their very detailed response here. Fair warning: it’s quite complex.

You can download the pdf of the response here, or click through to the jump to read the full-text version. If you want to quote their response online, attribute the source to them with the information below.

Response to Special Report 298
Driving and the Built Environment:
The Effects of Compact Development on Motorized Travel, Energy Use, and CO2 Emissions

Reid Ewing, Arthur C. Nelson, and Keith Bartholomew
Metropolitan Research Center
University of Utah
September 16, 2009

The National Research Council recently issued the report Driving and the Built Environment: The Effect of Compact Development on Motorized Travel, Energy Use, and CO2 Emissions.  This report is well-researched and well-written.  This is not surprising since the NRC committee that produced the report — the Committee for the Study on the Relationships Among Development Patterns, Vehicle Miles Traveled, and Energy Consumption — is made up of well-respected scholars in the subject area.

The report is in response to language included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.  At the time of the Act, there was still a question as to the link between development patterns, the amount people drive, and the associated oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.  Since 2005, additional research—including the Urban Land Institute’s Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change—has solidified the argument that development patterns and VMT are indeed connected and that we must address the amount Americans drive in order to meet national climate and energy goals.  The NRC report supports both of these arguments, as does the exhaustive literature review that informed the report.

While Growing Cooler and the NRC report agree that development needs to become more compact in order to address climate and energy goals, the estimated VMT and greenhouse gas reductions from such development differ due to different assumptions about the future. The NRC report reflects a conservative bias that is common in much academic work. It assumes that the distant future, even out to 2050, will not be very different from the world today.

Think about how different the U.S. is today than it was in 1970.  We, as co-authors of/ contributors to Growing Cooler, kept this fact in mind as we made our assumptions about the future.  We believe that due to dramatic demographic shifts, the peaking and subsequent decline in conventional oil production, changing life style preferences that are already evident from surveys, climate initiatives that the U.S. is now prepared to lead, and a host of other factors, the world in 2050 will be as different from today’s world as today is from 1970.  Changing household structure, sharply rising fuel prices, the imperatives of climate change, smart growth initiatives at the federal, state, and local levels will all pull in the same direction, in an unprecedented manner, toward compact development and reduced VMT.  It is significant that Growing Cooler is a product of the nation’s leading development industry association, leading smart growth advocacy organization, and leading clean air advocacy group.  All of these groups understand that dramatic change is necessary and already in motion.

Different Projected VMT, Energy, and CO2 Outcomes

In their “moderate” scenario, the NRC committee projects reductions in VMT and associated energy use and CO2 emissions of about 1 percent below trend by 2030, growing to between 1.3 and 1.7 percent below trend by 2050.  Let’s be very clear about what this implies. This “moderate” projection represents virtually no change at all from a future of suburban sprawl, cheap gas, and auto-dependence.  In this scenario, all of the societal changes listed above have no effect on behavior.

In their “upper-bound” scenario, the NRC committee projects reductions in VMT and associated energy use and CO2 emissions of 7 to 8 percent below the base case by 2030, growing to between 8 and 11 percent below the base case by 2050.

The NRC committee notes that we in Growing Cooler projected a reduction of 7 to 10 percent in future U.S. transportation-related CO2 emissions resulting from more compact development, which would seem to be in line with their upper-bound projections.  However, our projections relate to total CO2 emissions of the transportation sector, including rural as well as urban travel, including air, rail, and sea travel as well as surface transportation, and factoring in the effects of increased congestion with compact development.  The relevant comparison is to our estimate of a 12 to 18 percent reduction in metropolitan VMT with compact development, almost twice their upper-bound estimate.

We now turn to a point-by-point comparison of the two analyses to better understand the different assumptions underlying our very different results.  The reader can then judge which set of assumptions is more reasonable.

Different Rates of Development and Redevelopment

One reason for our differing results is our different assumptions about the amount of development and redevelopment that can be redirected from sprawl into compact patterns.  The two analyses assume about the same number of new housing units will be required to accommodate population growth.  In fact, our estimate is toward the bottom end of the range assumed by the NRC committee, which means that we have less new development to redirect.  However, for two types of development/redevelopment, we are less conservative than the NRC committee.

The first type is commercial and institutional development. The committee states: “While recognizing the importance of commercial space that complements more compact development, the committee was unable to predict how this space would be distributed within metropolitan areas, and thus focused solely on residential development.” We see far more potential for redirecting commercial and institutional development than residential development because the former is replaced at nearly five times the rate of the latter.  We project that 190 billion additional square feet of nonresidential space will be built between 2005 and 2050, to replace obsolete stock and accommodate growth.  That is more than the total stock of nonresidential buildings in existence in 2005.  Just as residential development can be redirected, so can this commercial and institutional development.

The NRC committee appears to misinterpret Nelson’s 2004(a) Brookings report estimating commercial and institutional space development needs. The NRC committee observes “(Nelson) projects that about 96.4 billion square feet will be added [between 2000 and 2030], nearly as much as existed in 2000 (106.7 billion square feet)” (emphasis added). Nelson’s figure actually includes total space to be built to accommodate new jobs and replaced for existing jobs, with the net space added being far less than that replaced. The bigger problem, however, is that the NRC committee chose not to address the role of nonresidential development in future land use patterns, despite the fact that it will rival residential space development.

The second type of development/redevelopment with the potential to be redirected is replacement housing.  The NRC committee assumed a net replacement rate of 0.2 percent per year based on analysis by Pitkin and Myers, versus Nelson’s assumed rate of 0.6 percent per year.  Nelson’s replacement rate implies the typical home lasts nearly 170 years – a long time by any reckoning. Nelson derived this estimate using decennial census, American Housing Survey, and Residential Energy Consumption Survey data, all provided by federal agencies (Departments of Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, and Energy, respectively) with each using different samples but all resulting in roughly the same rate of residential unit replacement. In contrast, the Pitkin and Myers replacement rate of 0.2 percent, accepted by the NRC committee, is equivalent to a home or its replacement on the same site lasting 500 years.

The NRC committee states that Nelson’s analysis would “be a major reversal of current trends, which favor suburban areas, to a move back to urban centers.” Nelson wrote differently, however, noting that “outer suburbs … (will account for) about two-thirds of projected growth” while central cities and first-tier suburbs would account for the rest, or about a third (Nelson 2006, 401). Available data would seem to support Nelson’s assessment. American Housing Survey data aggregated over 2001, 2003, 2005 and 2007 of homes built in the preceding four years show that central cities accounted for nearly a third of all homes built within metropolitan statistical areas. In this respect, Nelson’s analysis assumes a continuation of current trends, not a reversal of them.

Different Market Acceptance of Compact Development

Another respect in which the NRC committee’s assumptions differ from ours is in the proportion of development between now and 2050 that can be redirected into compact patterns.  Their “moderate” scenario assumes that 25 percent of residential development between now and 2050 will be compact, defined as twice the density of trend development.  Their “upper-bound” scenario assumes that 75 percent of residential development will be compact.  We, on the other hand, assume that between 60 and 90 percent of all new development through 2050 will be compact.

To some the NRC committee’s assumptions would seem to be realistic, and ours to be overly optimistic.  However, consider that we are talking about the increment of new development on top of a base that is mostly sprawl.  Because current development patterns are mostly sprawling, and much of the development that exists today will remain in 2050, our assumptions translate into at least 40 percent of built environment in 2050 continuing to be sprawled.

The NRC committee’s “moderate” assumption translates into as much as 80 percent of the built environment continuing to be sprawled, despite the forces described above moving us toward more compact development.  For instance, between 2010 and 2050, more single-person households will be added than households with children. Moreover, roughly two-thirds to three-quarters of the net gain in households between 2010 and 2050 will be among households without children. Housing demand functions of households without children and single-person households are different from households with children.

We have previously shown that there is enough large lot single-family development on the ground today to meet the entire demand in 2025 (Nelson 2006).  What changing demographics and lifestyle preferences suggest is an unmet demand for small lot single-family and attached-unit development.  We believe that the development industry will meet the rising demand for compact development, with a time lag that is the historical norm.  Indeed, but for local land use regulations, the development community in many parts of the nation would be well on its way to responding to changing demand. (We applaud the NRC committee for pointing out this barrier to meeting housing needs.)

Different Travel Patterns Association with Compact Development

A third area where our assumptions differ from the NRC committee’s is in the VMT reduction associated with compact development.  The NRC committee’s “moderate” scenario assumes a 12 percent reduction in driving with compact development relative to sprawl.  Their “upper-bound” scenario assumes a 25 percent reduction.  Their “lower-bound” scenario assumes a 5 percent reduction.  They describe the upper and lower bounds are bracketing values from the literature.

Our range of 20 to 40 percent reduction is based on four different literatures, only one of which, the regional scenario literature, suggests a reduction as low as 20 percent (Bartholomew and Ewing 2009).  The other three literatures are:

• The aggregate travel literature, which suggests a reduction of 25 to 35 percent (see Ewing, Pendall, and Chen 2002);
• The disaggregate travel literature, which suggests a reduction of one-third or more (see Ewing and Cervero 2001); and
• The project-level simulation literature, which suggests a reduction ranging upward to 75 percent (see Ewing et al. 2008).

While we don’t have a particular problem with the NRC committee’s upper-bound estimate, their “moderate” estimate is clearly in error.  It is the reduction they would expect from a doubling of density alone.  Thus they fall into the common trap of equating compact development with denser development.  Denser development is only one of several travel altering characteristics that Ewing, Pendall, and Chen (2002) and Ewing and Cervero (2001) associate with compact development.  Compact development mixes land uses, while sprawl segregates them.  Compact development has strong population and employment centers, while sprawl has weak ones.  Compact development has pedestrian-friendly urban design, while sprawl has auto-scale design.  Significantly, from the Ewing and Cervero meta-analysis (2001), density is less important than the kind of destination accessibility one associates with infill development and redevelopment, and only as important as diversity (mixed use) and design (pedestrian-friendly urban design).  See Table 1.

Table 1. Typical Elasticities of Travel with Respect to Four D Variables (Ewing and
Cervero 2001)

In any event, in an EPA-funded study, the Ewing and Cervero meta-analysis has been updated, and the results are far more definitive than any study to date.  The new meta-analysis is based on over 50 empirical studies from 1996 through the present, from which travel elasticities could be derived.  This updated meta-analysis suggests that the other D variables—diversity, design, destination accessibility—have more impact on VMT than does density (see Table 2).

Table 2. VMT Elasticity Values from Recent Meta-Analysis

Despite its conservative bent, the NRC study will serve as a valuable platform for the argument that regulations and incentives that favor compact development can and should be part of national, state and local efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  As with other energy policy arenas, such as vehicle efficiency and renewable energy standards, it will take time for this argument to attain acceptance as a climate strategy with the public and lawmakers. Compact development is already gaining favor for reasons other than climate goals. Market preferences and economic benefits are already leading developers and local governments to start changing the way communities are planned and built. Growing Cooler and the NRC study agree that this is a win-win solution for the economy and the environments that state and federal governments should do more to support.

References

Bartholomew, K. and R. Ewing. (2009) Land Use-Transportation Scenario Planning: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of the American Planning Association, 75(1), 13-27

Ewing, R., K. Bartholomew, et al. (2008). Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change, Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C.

Ewing, R. and R. Cervero (2001) Travel and the Built Environment. Transportation Research Record 1780, 87-114

Ewing, R., R. Pendall and D. Chen (2002) Measuring Sprawl and Its Impact, Smart Growth America/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Nelson, A.C. (2004a). Toward a New Metropolis: The Opportunity to Rebuild America. Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.

Nelson, A. C. (2004b). Planners’ Estimating Guide: Projecting Land-Use and Facility Needs. American Planning Association, Chicago, IL.

Nelson, A.C.  (2006) Leadership in a New Era. Journal of the American Planning Association. 72(4), 393–407.

A new report released yesterday chronicles how the record public transportation ridership of 2007 and 2008 helped cut carbon dioxide emissions by 37 million tons in 2008 — and more importantly, how increasing transit ridership in the future is an essential strategy for helping us reach our ambitious national goals of cutting emissions and preventing climate change. Read the report (pdf)

Last summer was a revelation for many people.

With gas topping $4 a gallon in some places, behaviors that seemed natural or immutable, like spending huge amounts of time in the car, were found to be deeply dependent on cheap, easily-available gasoline — which was not so cheap anymore. This trend helped speed an already growing movement towards public transportation up to a fever pitch.

So a year later, Environment America asked the question:  What were the environmental benefits of this surge in transit ridership?

Environment America, a partner with SGA on many state projects, released a report today called “Getting on Track: Record Transit Ridership Increases Energy Independence” which chronicles the positive benefits of that booming transit ridership on our energy use and emissions.  2008 saw record ridership on streetcars, trolley, rail, buses, and commuter rail, as well as a drop in the time that people spent driving their cars.  According to Environment America, this was no coincidence.

Not only did Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) go down, but people actively switched to other modes of transportation.  Based on the places where VMT dropped the most, EA concluded that “the fewer miles people drove, the more they utilized transit.”

Switching modes provided several important benefits.  It saved money spent nationally on gasoline.  It reduced our dependence on foreign countries that are sometimes hostile or in turmoil. Further, Environment America reports that “in terms of global warming, public transportation reduced carbon dioxide emissions, the leading cause of climate change, by 37 million tons in 2008.” Take a look:

At the same time that many transit agencies across the country are facing growing demand for their services, they are also facing immense budget shortfalls. The EA report recommends that if we want to cut emissions and increase the positive impacts on the environment, providing more support and flexibility to transit agencies, despite tight budgets, would be a good place to start. They lay out an ambitious, but reachable, goal for increasing transit ridership. (Some portions bolded for emphasis):

Growing demand and preference for transit warrant an overhaul of public transportation policy, rather than a business-as-usual approach. This would fully capitalize on the growth opportunity evidenced in 2008 and 2009, deliver significant energy and environmental benefits, and put the nation firmly on track to energy independence.

Such an overhaul could take the form of setting a high yet realistic target for increasing transit ridership by 10 percent annually. This level was achieved across many states and transit systems in 2008 and 2009, and in 15 years such an approach could reduce transportation oil consumption by 20 billion gallons per year — equivalent to what we currently import from the Persian Gulf. This would also result in an annual reduction of 180 million tons of carbon dioxide pollution — more than four times the current benefit conferred by public transportation.

In 30 years, a 10 percent annual growth in transit ridership would save more than 80 billion gallons of gasoline per year, more than three-quarters of the oil that America consumes currently for transportation. Also, carbon dioxide emissions would be cut by more than 700 million tons per year, or 12 percent of current total U.S. emissions.“

Elana Schor at Streetsblog Capitol Hill points out that increasing transit ridership 10 percent and cutting 180 million tons of CO2 would get us halfway to the stated targets in the current House climate bill:

That annual cut of 180 million tons of CO2 would amount to 3 percent reduction below 2005 emissions levels every year. The climate bill passed by the House in June aims to reduce emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels over the next 11 years, making a national transit-ridership target a key weapon in the arsenal of climate policy-makers.

Stay tuned; you’ll hear more from us in the next few weeks about what you can do to get more support for clean transportation as we move toward a less wasteful and more environmentally-friendly future.

We will still offer regular opportunities to weigh in on important legislation, whether or not you choose to get knee deep into the details of policy.

- Stephen Davis
Communications Associate

Senate Passes the FY2010 Transportation and Housing Spending Bill
LEGISLATION MOVES TO CONFERENCE COMMITTEE

After almost a week of debate over amendments, the Senate approved its $122 billion FY 2010 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill by a vote of 73 to 25. (With the unfortunate acronym of THUD.)

The House approved its version of the bill on July 23 by a vote of 256-168. The discretionary funding levels in the bill vary just slightly between the Senate and House versions, with the Senate spending $67.7 billion and the House providing $68.8 billion. The most significant difference is over spending for high-speed rail and funding for a National Infrastructure Bank. The Administration has made it clear that funding for high-speed rail is a priority issue for them, seeking $1 billion a year for high-speed rail over the next five years.

SGA supports the higher level of funding for high speed rail included in the House bill. There will be a House/Senate conference committee in the coming days to reconcile the two different versions of the bill, giving us more time to weigh in and tell Congress to support the higher funding level for high speed rail.

Send a message to Congress supporting the $4 billion dollar funding for high speed rail with our partners at Transportation for America. Or visit http://www.FourBillion.com today.

These bills also include $150 million for HUD’s new sustainable communities effort, which will largely help fund planning grants to communities and regions. HUD will be releasing a process for the structure and application of those grants sometime after final passage of the appropriations bill.

During the week prior to passage, Senate Republicans offered a number of amendments to the bill in an attempt to strip all earmarked funding. The failed amendments included an amendment from John McCain (R-AZ) to block funding for HUD’s brownfields economic development program and an amendment from Tom Coburn (R-OK) to remove a requirement that states spend 10 percent of their highway and transit cash (only about 2% of all transportation spending) on enhancement projects such as pedestrian and bike paths, safety projects, and scenic and historic highway programs (see vote for Coburn amendment).

And read more details about the Coburn amendment from Transportation for America.

The Senate did pass an amendment offered by Senator Wicker (R-MS) that requires Amtrak to allow passengers to transport guns in their checked luggage or lose federal funding if they fail to comply within 6 months. This language was adopted by a vote of 68-30.

The Senate and House conferees are expected to meet in the next few weeks to work out the differences between the bills. The version approved by the House does not include the amendment related to firearms on Amtrak.

Senate Begins Work on FY2010 Interior-Environment Spending Bill
LEGISLATION INCLUDES FUNDING FOR EPA SMART GROWTH OFFICE

On Thursday, the Senate began debate on the FY 2010 Interior and Environment appropriations bill before completing the Transportation-HUD bill.  Debate on amendments are continuing this week with more votes scheduled for Tuesday. The bill includes $32.1 billion in discretionary spending, which is a $4.5 billion increase over 2009 levels, but slightly less than the $32.3 billion in the House-passed bill and $225 million less than requested by the Administration.

It includes $5.146 million for the EPA smart growth office, as requested by the Administration, and close to Smart Growth America’s request for $6 million. Funding for the EPA smart growth office is not expected to be targeted by amendments, but we will be closely monitoring the debate.

Congress Expected to Address Transportation Authorization with Extension
SAFETEA-LU SET TO EXPIRE SEPTEMBER 30

Legislation to reform and fully fund the aging national surface transportation system has been placed on the backburner for much of the summer. House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar (D-MN), who once spoke strongly against any delay, is now pushing for a 3-month extension. Three Senate bills that were approved by committees before the August recess have been consolidated into one. The Senate bill, which would extend the current transportation law by 18 months and transfer $20 billion into the Highway Trust Fund, is expected to be brought to the floor in the this week.

Rep. Oberstar is hoping to a bring his 3-month extension to the House floor as soon as tomorrow (9/23), according to Streetsblog Capitol Hill.

Some sort of extension will have to pass before the current law expires on September 30, 2009. Although many lawmakers are calling for quick action on this issue, history is not on their side. The last transportation bill in 2005, SAFETEA-LU, was signed into law two years and 12 extensions after its predecessor expired.

Senate Climate Legislation Expected in the Coming Weeks
PRESSURE ON SENATORS NEEDED TO ENSURE FUNDING FOR TRANSPORTATION

Senator Boxer is expected to release the Senate’s version of comprehensive climate legislation at the end of September. The House passed their version of the climate bill in June, which provides only (up to) 1% of revenues to fund clean, green transportation that can help cut emissions from the transport sector. Action is needed to ensure that the Senate bill dedicates more funding to support planning and green transportation, as in the CLEAN-TEA bill — which allocates 10% of funding for these purposes.

If transportation is responsible for roughly 1/3 of our emissions, it’s logical to steer a share of funds raised from climate legislation towards transportation investments that can help cut emissions and reduce energy use.

TAKE ACTION: Call and email your Senator today and ask them to tell Senator Boxer that significant funding for green transportation is needed to create jobs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector, which makes up about 1/3 of emissions in the U.S. Visit the SGA Advocacy Center for more information and talking points on CLEAN-TEA.

Administrator Jackson is spending three days touring the country with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan and White House Director of Urban Affairs Adolfo Carrion.  The so-called “Sustainable Communities Tour,” which looks at communities that exemplify innovation in sustainability, is a project of the historic Sustainable Communities Partnership, in which EPA, HUD, and DOT have pledged to work together to aid American communities.  Inter-agency cooperation of this size is unprecedented — and an important step in helping cities, towns, and rural areas thrive.

She announced that four state and local governments would be receiving assistance through the Smart Growth program including the state of California; Las Cruces, New Mexico; Louisville, Kentucky; and Montgomery County, Maryland.

Also announced was an Urban Waters Initiative aimed at urban areas near waterways and renewed assistance to give states “cost-effective, sustainable approaches to water infrastructure.”

“Sustainable communities require the coordination of environmental strategy, transportation planning, and housing policy – which is why President Obama has brought together this interagency partnership to get it done,” said Administrator Jackson.

You can read the full press release here.

A new bill before Congress would provide a path to prosperity for cities struggling with long-term population loss and abandonment — encouraging new approaches and coordinating existing resources for strategies that already work. By creating a new grant opportunity, the Community Regeneration, Sustainability, and Innovation Act of 2009 gives local governments the tools they need for preventing, managing, and reclaiming vacant properties.

Take one minute to tell your member of Congress to help our struggling communities become healthy again by supporting this important bill.

Yet there’s no lack of people in this country who need a place to live. What’s lacking are the kinds of homes that people want or need or, at the most basic level, can afford. Many people can live in whatever kinds of homes the developers are building, even if they would prefer to live in more walkable, livable communities — but the poor cannot afford the lack of housing choices that are presented to them.

I finally picked up Barbara Ehrenreich’s now-classic Nickle and Dimed last week. I’m sure it’s redundant to recommend it, but it offers some insight into where people are going when their houses are foreclosed on: their cars. Motels. Living in cramped quarters with people who may or may not be related to them. Here is a conversation that Ehrenreich has with a coworker at a waitressing job in Florida:

“When Gail and I are wrapping silverware in napkins—the only task for which we are permitted to sit—she tells me she is thinking of escaping her roommate [a male friend who has begun hitting on her] by moving into the Days Inn…I am astounded: how can she even think of paying $40 to $60 dollars a day? But if I was afraid of sounding like a social worker, I have come out just sounding like a fool. She squints at me in disbelief: ‘And where am I supposed to get a month’s rent and a month’s deposit for an apartment?’ I’d been feeling pretty smug about my $500 efficiency, but of course it was made possible only by the $1,300 I had allotted myself for start-up costs when I began my low-wage life: $1,000 for the first month’s rent and deposit, $100 for initial groceries and cash in my post, $200 stuffed away for emergencies. In poverty, as in certain propositions in physics, starting conditions are everything.”

Since the book was published back in 2001, housing has not gotten more affordable at the lower end of the price spectrum, and income sources have dried up. In 2001, there was a plentiful supply of minimum-wage jobs, and Ehrenreich easily moved into town and began working within the week—three different times. Now, many people might spend months trying to get those same minimum-wage jobs. If I can’t recommend Nickle and Dimed, I can at least recommend Ehrenreich’s three-part series in the New York Times from earlier this summer on what the recession is doing to the already-poor:

“But yes, the recession has made things palpably worse, largely because of job losses. With no paychecks coming in, people fall behind on their rent and, since there can be as long as a six-year wait for federal housing subsidies, they often have no alternative but to move in with relatives…The most common coping strategy… is simply to increase the number of paying people per square foot of dwelling space — by doubling up or renting to couch-surfers. It’s hard to get firm numbers on overcrowding, because no one likes to acknowledge it to census-takers, journalists or anyone else who might be remotely connected to the authorities. At the legal level, this includes Peg taking in her daughter and two grandchildren in a trailer with barely room for two, or my nephew and his wife preparing to squeeze all four of them into what is essentially a one-bedroom apartment.”

With tens of millions of properties sitting empty, and an unknown but unacceptable number of people in what Ehrenreich calls “Dickensian” living situations, something does not add up.

“This timely and important study provides resounding affirmation that urban development is both a key contributor to oil dependency and climate change and an essential factor in combating those twin threats to our future.

Since 1980, the number of miles Americans drive each day has grown three times faster than population, and almost twice as fast as vehicle registrations. The authors found that ‘dispersed, automobile-dependent development patterns have come at a cost, consuming vast quantities of undeveloped land, increasing the nation’s dependence on imported petroleum, and increasing greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming.’

The report confirms what Growing Cooler and dozens of studies have now established: Meeting the growing demand for conveniently located homes in walkable neighborhoods could significantly reduce the growth in the number of miles Americans drive, shrinking the nation’s carbon footprint while giving us more choices in our communities.

Because the transportation sector accounts for nearly a third of greenhouse gas emissions and 70 percent of our oil use, we have to find a way to reduce the amount each of us has to drive each day, especially as population grows toward 400 million.

Market research shows that a majority of future housing demand lies in smaller homes and lots, townhouses, and condominiums in neighborhoods with nearby access to jobs, activities and public transportation. The researchers note that demographic changes, shrinking households, rising gas prices, lengthening commutes and cultural shifts all play a role in that demand.

While demand for such smart-growth development is growing, the authors note that government regulations, government spending, and transportation policies still favor sprawling, automobile-dependent development. Changing those policies should play a role in addressing climate and energy issues, the report concludes.

Doing so comes with an array of important side benefits, as the authors point out: ‘More compact, mixed-use development should reduce some infrastructure costs, increase the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of public transit, and expand housing choices where compact developments are undersupplied. Other benefits include reduced conversion of agricultural and other environmentally fragile areas and greater opportunities for physical activity by facilitating the use of non-motorized modes of travel, such as walking and bicycling.

As Congress moves forward with climate legislation and the transportation authorization, there is a once in a lifetime opportunity to realize the multiple benefits that investments in green transportation and smarter community planning would create for the country.  Congress should include policy in these landmark bills that will provide cities and towns with the resources and guidance to create the walkable, more convenient communities that Americans want.”

Contact: David Goldberg 202-412-7930 dgoldberg [at] smartgrowthamerica [dot] org

Community Partnership for the Arts and Culture is holding Rust Belts to Artist Belt II, a conference held in Cleveland September 17th-18th, in the belief that artists and their work can affect strong change in rust belt cities, and become partners in the revitalization process:

Our national and international experts will show you how innovative thinkers are using the industrial Midwest’s unique mix of assets, including its extensive network of community development corporations, its established arts and culture sector and its multitude of vacant properties, to re-imagine the “Rust Belt” as the Artist Belt.  Our experts will address the practical considerations artists and community developers should think about when forming partnerships and undertaking their own projects.

Registration ends next Thursday, September 10th.  Click here to find out more, or to register online.

Smart Growth America CEO Geoff Anderson spoke to WNYC public radio after this Monday’s application deadline about what the application process, what the money can buy, and what high speed rail can do for the United States. Here are some excerpts:

Q: “$8 billion is a lot of money, clearly. $8 billion is the same amount of money, more or less, that was in the stimulus bill for all of transit spending all over the US. But it’s not really enough to get you much high speed rail. How much can $8 billion buy you?”

A: “Well, $8 billion can buy you, for instance, somewhere in the neighborhood of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, which is a pretty significant build-out of the Chicago area rail. It can meet the needs for the Florida corridor. But yes, when you talk about what can it buy you given the demands that we’re seeing coming into the program, given the 11 corridors, it’s not a lot. Clearly, this $8 billion has to be — and ought to be — a down payment on the future, and it ought to be followed up by consistent investment over the next 10, 20, 30 years, in the same way that we have over the past 10, 20, 30, 50 years in air travel and in automobile travel.”

Q: “Now, tell us what you saw yesterday. I know that the applications are just coming in, but as you begin to digest them, what kinds of applications are coming in, and what states and regions seem to have their act together?”

A: “Well, I think we’re still waiting to see that, really, in terms of the specific states and regions that have their act together. A lot of the applications really are … looking at the existing system and identifying key points of congestion, key conflict areas between passenger rail and freight rail, and other very strategic incremental investments that you can make on existing lines that give you the biggest bang for the buck.

At the same time, I think we are starting to see some of the applications really looking at entire new lines and places where they can separate the passenger rail from the freight rail, and provide truly high speeds in the sense of the high speed rail that we see in Europe or Japan. I think places like Florida, California, the Midwest Region, and the Hartford line — those are places that have some good prospects. But we’ll have to wait and see exactly what’s in the applications.”

But beyond specific projects, Geoff Anderson believes that high speed rail has something to offer Americans that they desperately need.

“The biggest thing to me, the thing that’s most important, is that this is a major shift in federal policy, and really in thinking about transportation in the United States,” Geoff Anderson said. “It’s thinking about the future, it’s thinking about doing things differently than we have in the past. That kind of transition to a system that really is a system where we have options at the community level to walk and bike, to get on public transportation to get around a region, and to get on passenger rail and high speed rail to move us between regions around the country—and to connect the country economically. We can’t get there in twelve months, eighteen months or two years. This is a long-term proposition…You have to think about where we need to go as a country, and what kind of transportation systems are going to support us in that.”

You can listen to the full broadcast over at the WNYC website.