Sacramento, California Summary

Discussion Summary:

The discussion emphasized the content outline, and format of a livability primer whereas previous meetings had focused on major elements. Key discussion points included:

• Challenges such as the historical cultural emphasis on car ownership and sprawl, lack of flexibility and funding availability to fund livability projects, and the need to see livability as an economic need rather than a side item.
• Solutions such as making sure that all stakeholders – including state DOTs and MPOs – are involved, encouraging livability through streamlined funding and demonstrating economic and other livability co-benefits.
• Priorities for content of a livability primer, which includes technical analysis and performance measures, ways to incorporate community vision and goals, and outreach materials with broad appeal.
• Communication and outreach methods, such as the need to ensure that any materials are visually stimulating and clear, using social media and web 2.0, and personalizing the message of livability while also making its economic benefits clear.

Based on input from this workshop, continued work in the subsequent workshop focused on developing these ideas further. The meeting structure included a number of presentations on regional practices, as well as a significant amount of brainstorming, facilitated discussion, and idea sharing. A summary of activities and key outputs follows.

Sacramento workshop discussions.

Workshop Specifics:

Location:
Sacramento Area Council of Governments Office
1415 L Street, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814

Date / Time:
May 3, 2011 from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm

Welcome and Introductions:

Shana Baker from FHWA's Office of Human Environment welcomed participants to the workshop and thanked them for coming. She thanked the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) in particular for hosting the workshop. Ms. Baker reviewed the workshop purpose, which focused on helping FHWA identify what the agency's stakeholders need by hearing about challenges and solutions from those on the ground. She noted that the workshops are part of the larger initiative, the Strategies for Livable Communities project, which will allow FHWA to develop tools to assist their field offices, as well as the HUD-DOT-EPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities.

Representatives from the regional Partnership agencies provided additional opening remarks. Sue Kiser, the Director of Planning and Air Quality for FHWA California Division Office, discussed reauthorization efforts, which are focused on incorporating livability and sustainability principles. Ms. Kiser noted that SACOG is on the forefront of planning initiatives through their Blueprint Planning Process, which has helped local agencies begin to implement integrated planning efforts. Cynthia Abbot, the Field Office Director for HUD Fresno Office, highlighted the agency's current budget, which is focused on incorporating livability principles as it relates to grant selection and program support. Grants will be focused on making effective long-term changes by supporting sustainability and helping maintain neighborhoods where people can live and work. Carolyn Mulvihill, an Environmental Protection Specialist from EPA Region 9 Office, noted that her division has been focused on bringing in expertise from various division offices to help advance regional activities. Region 9 has also been working closely with the headquarters Smart Growth office in Washington, DC to advance interagency partnership efforts, particularly as it relates to EPA's brownfields grant program. Eric Eidlin, the Regional Tribal Liaison from FTA Region 9 Office, discussed that there are a number of partnership initiatives underway to help leverage investments for livability. One of these initiatives is focused on how to engage local partners and gather input from the expertise that currently exists within all levels of government. Participants introduced themselves, as did the meeting facilitators and managers from ICF International and Renaissance Planning Group.

Setting the Stage for Livability:

Harrison Rue from ICF International reviewed the purpose and outcomes of both the overall project and the day's workshop in particular. As the majority of participants indicated that they had read the background paper developed for this project, The Role of FHWA Programs in Livability: State of the Practice Summary, Mr. Rue provided a brief overview of the paper's content. This overview included a review of the Sustainable Communities Partnership and the associated principles, components included in the definition of "livability in transportation," benefits of incorporating livability, overall research findings, and a review of state of the practice examples from areas that have successfully incorporated livability into a variety of efforts.

Identifying Challenges to Livability:

During this large group discussion session, participants were asked to focus on the following three questions:

1. What are the big challenges to implementing transportation solutions that support and advance livable communities?
2. How do the challenges and solutions differ in:
   1. Urban, suburban, and rural contexts?
   2. Local, regional, and State agencies?
3. What is one solution that has worked for your agency?

Participants identified five main categories of challenges, as well as potential solutions that could be used to overcome some of these challenges. During the discussion, participant recommendations were listed on flip charts and posted around the room for participants to reference during discussion. Using a dot voting exercise, the five below reflect the priorities from the participants.

1. Overcoming past development patterns and the automobile culture
   • The history of the car culture makes it difficult to get people to shift their ideas away from automobiles. This culture extends into State DOTs, engineering departments, and other governmental organizations as well.
   • There is a need to change the negative public perception toward transit and raise awareness of transit options and its role as it relates to regional livability.
   • Many communities are built on a history of sprawl. There is a need to acknowledge this and work to respond to this reality in a reasonable way. Now that development in many areas has slowed, there is an opportunity to focus on planning rather than the prior focus on permitting and marketing. With a renewed focus on planning, areas can work on incorporating livability into the existing infrastructure and development.
   • It is difficult to overcome existing development patterns, which do not support livability and the culture it supports. There is a need to retrofit existing areas to overcome the actions supported by this culture.
   • The culture of building the train system on time and on budget is sacrificing livability issues. Instead, transit construction should be approached the same way that highways have traditionally been approached.
   • High densities and a culture of rural communities have generated gated communities, a development pattern which has been allowed in many areas. This development pattern pushes all of the traffic onto the roadways and does not leave any room for pedestrians, transit, or bikers. Developers are not supportive of reducing the development area to widen sidewalks, which has meant that the public domain is squeezed out.
   • As we increase density on busy roadways, health concerns become an issue. These health concerns include both mobile and stationary toxin sources. The planning and development costs become higher as health elements are considered and mitigation efforts are implemented. A variety of stakeholders—including those involved in health—should be included at the table up-front during the project development process.
   • Look at the history of planning and the history of how land was platted historically to identify lessons that can be learned and incorporated into present and future efforts. Lessons related to land use implementation could prove particularly helpful.
2. Flexibility of funding to implement livability concepts
   • There is an overall lack of funding.
   • For the funding that is available, there is a lack of flexibility for implementing some of the livability concepts.
   • Many cities face a difficult fiscal situation, which has contributed to a lack of buy-in. These issues are only becoming more of a challenge.
   • Implementing livability priorities is difficult when budgets already cannot be met.
   • There is uncertainty surrounding local and Federal funding, which makes it difficult to support sustainable communities.
   • A significant amount of funding is allocated to moving cars through cities rather than helping move people around cities. Targeting State agency funding toward safety, preservation, and capacity could allow some flexibility with the traditional focus on cars. The State level funding structure hampers efforts to allocate funding outside of traditional focus areas.
   • At present, funding is not awarded toward livability programs, which presents challenges for implementation.
   • Livability is considered a side line item.
   • The three Federal agencies use very different methods of getting grant/project funds to recipients and there is very limited understanding of the HUD and EPA channels by transportation agencies. The agencies' different project planning time frames are also an issue. The long lead time that has been enforced on transportation projects through the RTIP process puts transportation projects beyond the time frame of many HUD/EPA grant programs.
3. Selling the economic benefits of livability
   • Livability should be framed as a solution that will be cost-effective in the long-term because efforts will be more strategic and efficient. For planning in particular, there is a need to address the fact that business as usual is more expensive. Some arguments that can be used include:
     • Implementation costs have become a much higher percentage of project costs.
     • Planning is becoming more complex while the resources are staying the same.
     • A significant amount of money is being spent on outdated projects.
   • The public perception of livability needs to be changed. People need to view livability as a core responsibility and concern for their business rather than as an add-on that only occurs when there is funding to address livability concerns. Particularly in times of fiscal challenges, the need to be smart about growth and cut housing, transportation, and energy costs is more critical. There is a significant challenge surrounding education and helping people to realize that addressing livability is a core responsibility.
   • The message of livability's economic benefits has not been selling. Visualization illustrations tend to convey messages related to residential happiness. New marketing efforts should change the message to focus on economic benefits with examples of how livability efforts benefitted a community in terms of revenues and success stories from local business owners.
   • Planning work is not being effectively connected to the work that elected officials are doing. By making the connection between planning and economic benefits clearer, it will raise the priority of this work for decisionmakers.
   • Continue spreading the message of a "new way of doing things" for elected officials. There is a need to identify unique messages that work for various sets of elected officials.
4. Transforming the "silo" culture within State and local agencies
   • There are a number of projects that have been stagnating for years, but are unable to move ahead due to a lack of local buy-in. The lack of a State presence at the table when discussing these efforts contributes to this issue.
   • Individual agencies often have siloed areas of expertise that are focused on a very limited area. In particular, there is often a lack of understanding by transportation professionals as to how livability strategies can be applied and how they can make transportation planning easier. New educational efforts should focus on broadening people's basic understanding to encompass a wider variety of topic areas that is not limited to cars only. Education should focus on an integrated planning approach and the value of bringing partners together.
   • It has been difficult to involve the development community and to draw them into the project development discussion.
   • Training materials are needed to help educate employees within State agencies about the benefits of livability. These materials should use terms that all people could understand so that the message is effectively conveyed. Many staff members do not have the ability or desire to get out of their comfort zone and learn about the possible benefits of livability. These benefits include how to leverage investments and identify solutions.
   • There is often a resistance to regional cooperation, as many communities are concerned about protecting their particular economy and their individual community's identity. It is a challenge to balance the priorities and concerns of an individual community with coming together as a region to identify solutions that cross community boundaries.
   • There is a disconnect between the regional concept of livability and the idea that communities can buy into it at a regional level. At the local level, there is a disconnect when regional density is ultimately focused in one community's area. There is a need to work on how communities understand these connections and the decisionmaking process behind it.
   • It is difficult to gain local agency buy-in within a community.
   • The US DOT has indicated that there will be a shift in the way that programs are focused. Given this potential change, local governments, State DOTs, and sub-regions need to work on identifying a way to embrace and anticipate these changes so that they will be easier to implement. By starting to understand this shift and its importance in the way that business will be conducted, there is a need to begin understanding upcoming changes.
   • There is a stark difference between rural and urban contexts that needs to be recognized when discussing livability. Within a local context, livability means a variety of things, and livability principles operate very differently. Recognizing these differences and using this understanding to work with communities to identify what is important for livability within their community in particular will help implementation within a local context.
   • Even with silos being broken down, challenges remain for changing traditional and/or legacy organizational policies and procedures that have been in existence for decades. Beginning the discussion about necessary changes is important.
   • Within each individual's agency, it is challenging to make necessary changes to evolve the agency from a silo or narrow area of expertise to a broader buy-in of knowledge. The pace of agency evolution is integrally tied to the amount of time an individual is willing to devote to making these changes, as short- and long-term demands are also at work. There are many changes to make and limited time in which to implement them.
5. Creating new tools, methods, and data sets to analyze and evaluate livability
   • The livable street or livable community concept is a much more complex organism than has been examined or modeled in the past. Increasingly, tools are becoming available to measure the impacts of various decisions; however, these have not been universally applied and could be used on a wider basis to bring more elected officials on board.
   • It is difficult to create new tools/methodology/data sets to measure quality of life and to develop standards that take livability into account. There is a lack of existing tools/methodologies/data sets that can be used to define success for livability or sustainability.
   • There is a need to continue developing a robust field of models and examples of livability successes so that a real life example of livability project implementation can follow each computer-generated visualization. These examples should be gathered to help tell the story of livability.
   • Support the public involvement process by demonstrating how livability and transportation can support broader community goals, and by helping to identify those goals. With more real life examples, areas can overcome this challenge and barrier and they will be able to use existing livability goal examples when developing their own community goals.
   • The courts should allow a more creative interpretation of "trip counts," as the legal definition is very narrow. Environmental regulations adhere strictly to this definition, which presents a challenge for implementing and gaining support for livability.
   • Many Federal regional agencies do not understand existing programs, which presents a barrier to leveraging funds for implementation.
   • Without having private investment happen on its own, economic development will face many barriers. This is particularly true given the conservative lending industry that completes project renderings.
   • Education is needed to inform residents about the value added from implementing livability principles. When livability is mentioned, residents sometimes feel that they are being asked to add more density to their area, which can generate equity concerns. Thus, many communities feel the need to defend their community against livability, which they equate with gentrification and displacement. Educating people on livability is a true challenge. Oftentimes, instead of housing, roads become a focal point because this is the only area residents are willing to change.
   • Transportation and land use are often not integrated. Much of the decisions regarding land use happen at the local level.
   • Rural areas do not have the capacity to go beyond basic planning. Within this limited capacity, rural areas are often not very knowledgeable about how to implement livability and sustainability ideas. Additionally, many rural areas view livability and sustainability as negative concepts.
   • It is important to begin integrated planning and to coordinate land use planning. Letting the planning process work to develop, prioritize, and implement projects is critical.

A summary of the solutions that participants mentioned are listed below. As many of these solutions are broadly applicable to a variety of challenges, they are not grouped into discrete categories.

• Work on identifying ways to save money by re-framing the discussion surrounding project development as it relates to a lack of planning dollars
• Move information onto the internet to force agencies to be more transparent about their information and reduce silo effects. Agency employees are more likely to see inter-agency connections if this information is readily available and easy to access. This information should also be made accessible to the public so that they are able to see connections as well.
• The sustainable communities grant money has been very helpful in advancing partnership efforts. For example, it has allowed some agencies to hold meetings with representatives from other agencies to discuss partnership and overlapping efforts.
• The MPO model of interagency coordination should be applied on a broader basis to a larger framework. FHWA has been supportive of interagency efforts and should continue to do so.
• Partnership agencies should publish joint notices of funding availability. When awarding funding, the applications should be reviewed by all partnership agencies as well. This will be effective for breaking down silos and barriers.
• Change the existing culture and vision as it relates to livability by focusing on educating the younger generation, who is receptive to these messages and interested in livability-related efforts. For residential development in particular, the younger generation is driving the market away from suburban areas and toward communities that reflect livability principles.

Following this discussion, participants received four dot stickers, which they used to vote for the challenges they thought were the most significant. No limit was placed on this voting process, and participants were allowed to use one or all four dots on any one particular challenge, depending on the significance they placed on it. As mentioned above, the categorization of the five identified challenges reflect the voting priorities from this exercise.

Overcoming Challenges:

Three of the workshop participants presented on successful livability efforts in the region, allowing all workshop participants to see and hear about successful livability examples in their region. Martin Tuttle of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) discussed the Department's current focus on coordinating efforts with local development agencies, as they play a vital role in helping identify community assets and using these effectively to implement livability. Mr. Tuttle also stressed the importance of local governments reaching out to State DOTs to work together on livability efforts, as the States can help to make sure that there is a common language spoken among local partners, and they have funds to help implement local efforts. Mike McKeever from SACOG discussed the organization's integrated planning efforts, known as the "Regional Blueprint Planning Program," which is modeled off Portland's efforts. Along with this program, SACOG has included a growth strategy in their regional plan, which is being implemented through a partnership with development agencies, and has been successful in bringing about a period of rapid improvement and change. Paul Zykofsky from the Local Government Commission presented on road diet and roundabout implementation on La Jolla Boulevard, Bird Rock in San Diego, which has helped to improve safety and promote local economic development. One of the biggest challenges the project faced was funding, but by working with a variety of local, regional, and State partners, the project was implemented successfully. Afterwards, there was a panel discussion, focusing on the key elements of their success:

• Political will is a driving force in success. For the La Jolla Boulevard project, City Council members were determined to implement the project quickly and make the project successful so that residents could begin seeing project benefits right away.
• A core commitment for the project is vital. The project cannot be viewed as an add-on. Ideally, this commitment would involve leadership from staff, board members, and representatives from the stakeholder community. By having a group of representatives who are committed to seeing the project through to the end, it is more likely to succeed.
• Project delivery and process management was very important for Caltrans. At the beginning of the process, elected official transition and politics presented an issue. The developers were ultimately the group that was involved from the beginning through to the end of implementation. Working with them from the very beginning of the project, was a helpful, driving force for the project, as they provided funding and were the risk-takers for purchasing properties in the downtown areas where livability efforts were being implemented. Support from the developers also helped with political buy-in. This relationship has proved very helpful for staying informed on current efforts and for project success.
  • Caltrans identified the key developers to involve by looking at the Chamber of Commerce to see who was an active member. They also consulted the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and the Building Industry Association.
  • Caltrans began talking to developers by picking up the phone and starting a dialogue. Beginning at the regional level for discussions was the most effective. State transportation agencies can also play a role in assisting regional efforts by talking with the State development agencies. For MPOs, discussions with developers can begin at any step in the planning process. Taking the initiative and starting the conversation is the most important.
  • Identifying these developers that will remain in business and be important in the future is difficult. In general, the small developers are the ones leading the way for infill projects.
• ULI, FHWA, and FTA worked together a couple of years ago to partner on land use and transportation options that were being investigated from both perspectives. They looked at the nexus of land use and transportation and how each community looked at each.
• One of the challenges is the local versus regional perspective on what is good for the region outside of what is specifically good for a particular community. In general, communities have ventured into this territory very carefully, and only if they have something to offer the other communities in the region. These pressures should not dictate the conversation, as letting this dynamic be the driving force will not allow any progress.
  • It is important to identify partners who have a multi-agency dynamic as a starting point for beginning conversations on regional efforts.
  • Regions should be focusing on the trickle down effects that will benefit each community if a particular industry locates in one community. The focus should be on not losing the industry to another State rather than arguing over in which community the industry will locate. It is important to reframe the conversation on broader topics such as economic development and how planning can help advance this, rather than focusing on other minor issues.
• The Federal partners play an important role in helping State DOTs and local agencies engage with one another. State DOTs tend to be skipped over in the process, as local agencies tend to go right to the Federal regions when looking to implement a project. Particularly for regional economic development, State DOTs have an important role to play in helping to tie regions together to help the State economy thrive.
  • Seattle is taking a different route by taking gas tax from the State and putting it toward local use.
• State DOTs play an important role for funding, as FHWA is not in a position to bring funding to the discussion table. If the State DOT and the MPOs are not at the table, transportation is not at the table. Projects will not be successful without the DOT involvement.
  • FTA works differently, as they finance agencies directly.
  • HUD has heard similar requests, as they have multiple State agencies in California. The issue of capacity presents a challenge.

Following this roundtable discussion, participants divided themselves into five groups with a mix of State, regional, local, and Federal representatives. Each group was asked to focus on one of the top five challenges, as voted on by the participants during the dot-voting process:

1. Overcoming past development patterns and the auto culture
2. Flexibility of funding to implement livability
3. Selling the economic benefits
4. Transforming the silo culture within State, MPO, and local agencies.
5. Creating new tools/methods/data sets to analyze and evaluate livability

During this hour-long discussion, participants were asked to focus on identifying solutions to one of the challenge areas and answer the questions below. In doing so, participants were asked to consider examples where they had overcome a project challenge in a relevant topic area and use that experience to assist in answering the questions.

• What effective strategies have helped you to overcome challenges?
  • What was important for you to succeed?
  • How have you measured the success of your efforts?
• What helped you to align or integrated different funding and agency priorities?
• What kinds of public and interagency process worked?
• What, if anything, did the Partnership do to facilitate success?

Each group provided a quick summary of their discussion.

Overcoming past development patterns and the auto culture

• Incentivize infrastructure by providing money for Transit-Oriented Development.
• Incorporate flexibility to make it easier for agencies to implement the projects they choose to do. Make it easier to implement livability and harder to implement projects that do not incorporate the livability principles.
• Phase strategies through land banking.
• Engage business communities through MPOs and local governments.
• Provide education opportunities such as regular workshops to public officials. Use education efforts to inform public officials about new ideas or successful strategies that should receive funding.
• Provide additional resources such as data and funding for local agencies.
• Focus on retrofitting existing plans and using individual planning efforts to create new areas with the existing community infrastructure. Individual planning efforts such as walkable community plans and complete streets standards can be effective in retrofitting existing boulevards and/or arterials.
• Change the existing zoning and other regulations that are presenting barriers to implementing livability to help agencies encourage communities that residents want.

Flexibility of funding to implement livability

• Streamline the Federal requirements for projects. Currently, projects under certain cost thresholds (generally under $5 million) are not pursued, as the regulatory burden is extremely high. For example, smaller projects, such as streetscaping and/or roundabouts, may be lower cost and can have the greatest impact for livability, but face barriers to funding.
• In recognition of the fact that livability projects are not solely focused on transportation, help livability projects become eligible for environmental funding. Funding sources can help integrate project efforts together and help projects incorporate a wider variety of concerns. Changing the funding so that there are fewer pots of money but greater opportunity to leverage that money for different types of projects would be helpful. Reauthorization may offer more flexible options.
  • For example, using CMAQ and STP funds to fund livability projects and to plan for TOD helps to create a more holistic project viewpoint.
  • It is helpful to look at the existing best practices for exchange Federal dollars for local dollars, which allows local agencies to use funding toward other projects in other focus areas. MPOs and agencies should be educated on this practice.
• Recognize the importance of leveraging private resources by building partnerships with private entities to partner in building public infrastructure. This could involve Public Private Partnerships or Public Private Enterprises. If public dollars are spent on something that will lead to a private benefit, it is important to capture some of that value.

Selling the economic benefits

• It is important to have cohesive and strong data for the transportation effects of development. Particularly, data is needed on the advantages livability provides to neighborhoods, property owners, and business owners. Reinforce the data with success stories about efforts such as road diets and increased property values, and tell the story in a quantifiable manner to a variety of stakeholders. Neighborhoods and business owners need to understand the benefits in order to support these efforts.
• Address the health impacts for both air quality and walkability that livability offers. Show the co-benefits for a healthy, sustainable community so that people will buy in to these project efforts.
• Demonstrate how transportation projects help to attract employment. For example, transportation informs where employment centers are located, which in turn provides new employment options in an area.
• Identify the benefits of living within one-half mile of common destinations, as well as the benefits of a variety of other livability initiatives.
• FHWA should serve as a common source for livability statistics. By having a Federal agency as the leading research group, the resulting statistics have a higher credibility, and it helps when organizations are able to use the same data sets when discussing their messages with the public and elected officials. Useful statistics include measuring the benefits that come from increasing density and from constructing livable streets. These statistics should be made readily available so that organizations can use this data in communication with elected officials.
• Use consistent messaging to create a consistent theme about the benefits of livability.

Transforming the silo culture within State, MPO, and local agencies

• Silos are easy, which is the biggest barrier facing the challenge of breaking them down.
• In working toward a future where State and local agencies partner together, it is important to take a progressive viewpoint and see this culture shift occurring. This culture shift will help in creating a seamless discussion between urban, suburban, and rural entities.
• Breaking down silos will become easier as we move into a more flexible approach to approaching problem solving and funding. The current method of bucket funding will not be sustainable in the future.
• To the greatest extent possible, get direction and modeling of the integrated approach from a higher, Federal level. Those who are already working across boundaries and using an integrated approach should be rewarded in some way.
• Develop a certification process where FHWA certifies multi-agency processes as being eligible for funding from a wider range of sources.
• Work on breaking down communication barriers to facilitate and improve existing inter- and intra-agency conversations.
• Identify the various roles that stakeholders and agency members play in the decisionmaking process. Use this to develop strategies that each agency can use to help them recognize their role as it relates to the silo effect. When agencies can see and identify where the process is breaking down, they will be able to identify how they can become a "silo-buster."
• Move to performance or outcome-based planning in transportation. This approach is inherently non-silo, which is beneficial. Thus, it should be reinforced and required.
• Recognize that livability can serve as an organizing element for efforts.
• Develop education and training materials for new practitioners and agency staff. In the future, there will be a need for livability practitioners who have a unique skill set. It is important to begin identifying now what that new skill set will include.
• Do not use a process similar to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, as this process did not allow for planning to be an integral member of the conversation. Instead, a lot of funding went toward making short-term adjustments like road resurfacing.

Creating new tools/methods/data sets to analyze and evaluate livability

• Focus on completeness as an integral part of the analysis rather than what has been done traditionally or what is the easiest method. For example, Level of Service has traditionally measured success along roads only and does not account for livability. Measures such as these should be updated to reflect success along multiple access points.
• Consider all the complete suite of effects that will be generated by implementing a particular project. Traditionally, travel time has been one of the most significant measures; however, measures such as health effects and wetlands loss are also important to consider. A wider variety of measures should be incorporated into the decisionmaking process to help inform project selection.
• Recognize the difference between accuracy and precision. Decimal points tend to generate a lot of confidence, but if it is not an accurate representation, it is not ultimately helpful. The issue of accuracy has been raised in measuring livability, as it is difficult to estimate the effects from the numerous factors that go into livability; however, it is important to start somewhere and begin trying to measure these effects rather than ignoring them and assuming them to be zero. Ultimately, taking steps toward measuring these impacts will help guide decisionmakers toward good decisions.
• There a number of helpful metrics already in existence that help measure the impacts across a variety of modes. VMT has been used widely, as it covers the impacts of automotive traffic, one of the effects that livability works to counteract. VMT can be used to help measure the livability impact for travel and could be used by agencies that do not have the option to use more sophisticated modeling.
• Consider the trade-offs that will be created by implementing a particular project. Monetizing the benefits would be effective, but is difficult to measure. It would be helpful to develop a common currency that could be used to measures benefits across modes and make more informed decisions.
• Research the potential Federal role as it relates to implementing livability.
• A helpful method to move projects forward is the "Do. Measure. Learn. Repeat." cycle. Some of the efforts involved in livability have not been done before, but it is important to at least try them and see the results.

Regional Livability Planning Strategies:

Three of the workshop participants presented on their organization's success in developing and implementing livability planning strategies at a regional level. Margi Bradway from Oregon Department of Transportation discussed the Department's efforts to create a culture of livability and sustainability, which has involved a combination of generating local interest and securing political support. Currently, the Department is working with MPOs on developing a new approach involving technical, education, and tool support. One of the approaches is "least cost planning," which involves costing all externalities involved in a project, and the Department is working on developing a tool on how to implement least cost planning at a corridor level. Andrea Riner from Lane Council of Governments discussed the local Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system, which received support from the business community, who recognized the project's value in stimulating economic development, but which faced barriers from local political leaders. This project demonstrated the value of securing regional leadership and the need for a partnership effort that matches Federal requirements, local partners, and experts from a variety of different topic areas. Martyn James from the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada discussed current transportation initiatives, which have been focused on addressing the exponential population growth in the region and the car-focused framework that was generated to accommodate that growth. Currently, the focus is on creating a regional multimodal network, which includes a complete streets initiative, regional trails, and a BRT system. Afterwards, there was a panel discussion, focusing on the key elements of their success:

• For Lane COG, the community's vision for the system was particularly important to the project's success. This vision involved connecting the BRT system to a full transit and land use vision. Developing the vision occurred over a long period of time, involved a number of stakeholders, and was helpful for leveraging the vision for other community benefits.
• Leadership from the top was important for RTC's success. The change in public opinion toward being in favor of current efforts has also helped. Over the last couple of years, RTC has stressed dialogue with locals and within the agency, which has been helpful for securing partners and for developing a shared vision and dialogue.
• For Oregon DOT, leadership has been helpful as well. The culture within the Department is slowly beginning to recognize that their focus is on transportation rather than highways. The focus has shifted toward looking to maximize and maintain the existing infrastructure, and to bring partners together for integrated efforts. The timing of the recession and multimodal political opportunities has helped to foster this changing environment.
• Oregon DOT has historically had a good relationship with their Federal partners, so the partnership has continued this good relationship. It has, however, been difficult for them to meet at the table with EPA and HUD, as the regional offices are not as active in Oregon. The partnership could be more effective by recognizing the role it plays throughout the entire State—not just a select number of regions.
  • Many of the initiatives Oregon DOT has pursued have happened at the State level.
  • FHWA's Oregon division has faced challenges in educating other Federal partners on how important it is to bring the State DOTs on board.
• The partnership provided Lane COG with the opportunity to move forward with the BRT project, as it faced funding challenges and competition. The partnership enabled Lane COG to begin to establish a vision that could be communicated effectively to different segments of the community.
• Southern Nevada RTC is geographically located are far away from their State and division offices, which has impacted the level of involvement. New technology has been helpful in reducing these barriers, but physical geographic locations have still proven a driving force in determining the level of involvement with the State and Federal agencies.

Harrison Rue directed each participant to turn to the person next to them and, for thirty seconds, discuss the question: What is the single most important thing that needs to be in the primer? Selected participants shared their responses. A summary of these responses is listed below.

• Recognize the importance of working closely with the business community.
• FHWA should provide clear guidelines on what livability projects look like, the requirements they incorporate, and the features they include. Make it clear for State DOTs and other agencies what is involved in implementing livability efforts.
• Tie the livability principles into design standards that developers and city planners can rely on and reference.
• It is useful to hear that the issues faced by local agencies are similar across all communities. These challenges are relevant to how changes are made and how staff members approach livability projects.
• Emphasize the importance of local government leaders.
• Incorporate case studies to help identify policy changes that are needed.

Whit Blanton from Renaissance Planning Group discussed the initial concepts for the FHWA primer on implementing livability, in which FHWA is moving away from the idea of developing a regional livability model plan and more toward a primer or guidebook discussing how to implement these strategies and make it successful, and how best to put existing plans and processes together to start integrating livability efforts. The key elements of the primer, as identified through prior workshop discussions, could include the following: integrated planning processes; community visions and goals; technical analysis and performance measures; plans, policies, and programs; project implementation strategies; and communications and outreach.

Mr. Blanton highlighted that, in working toward an integrated regional planning process, it is important to look at existing plans and processes, as livability can be incorporated into these established processes. Existing plans and processes where livability elements could be incorporated include:

• Long range transportation plans
• Comprehensive plans (or General Plans)
• HUD Consolidated Plans)
• Regional visioning and scenario planning
• Regional environmental greenprints and watershed planning
• Regional transit plans
• Economic development plans
• Hazard mitigation plans
• Federal Emergency Management Agency post-disaster recovery plans
• Smaller scale stationary plans
• State plans (both policy level and modal plans)
• Highway design manual
• School district planning efforts
• State comprehensive recreation plans (non-vehicle focus)

The discussion on the primer was split into an hour-long discussion on each of the key elements. Participants broke into five different groups with a mix of State, regional, local, and Federal representatives. Harrison Rue guided the discussion by breaking it into four, fifteen-minute segments where participants were asked to focus on particular elements and answer tailored questions about each. The discussions focused on the following questions:

• Integrated planning processes & Community visions and goals
  • For an FHWA 'primer' on livability planning and implementation…what information or new guidance is needed?
    • Which existing planning processes should we focus on? Which ones need the most guidance?
    • Which plans/processes will benefit the most from an integrated approach?
• Technical analysis and performance measures & Plans policies and programs
  • For an FHWA 'primer' on livability planning and implementation…what information or new guidance is needed?
    • In addition to scenario planning, what other kinds of analysis support livability?
    • What types of plans do you need guidance on?
    • Which policies or programs are most effective in sparking and sustaining livability initiatives?
• Project implementation strategies
  • For an FHWA 'primer' on livability planning and implementation…what information or new guidance is needed?
    • How do you most effectively bridge the gap between plans/policies and project development/design?
    • What are the key implementation decision points?
    • What interagency practices best support implementation of livable communities outcomes?

Following the discussion on project implementation strategies, Jack Ecklund from the City of University Place, Washington presented on the City's livability efforts, which are based around a city vision that is focused on using the livability principles and placemaking to transform the local streets to create a public space. The City used road diets, sidewalks, and bike lanes to help create streets that are now safer and benefit all members of the community.

Harrison Rue reviewed some successful communication and outreach efforts to identify some of the options available for messaging and marketing the concept of livability. Successful communication and outreach efforts have included fact sheets, summary brochures, summary posters, Web 2.0, and social media. Considering these efforts, participants were asked to reflect on the following questions in a small-group setting:

• What forms of products should any new guidance take?
• What messages resonate with different groups to understand and help explain livability?
• What communications and marketing materials would help you to make the case for livability?
• What tools and technical assistance do you need?

Each group summarized their discussions on each of the potential key primer elements. The main points of each summary are listed below.

Group 1

• Integrated planning process & community visions and goals
  • Change the process so that visions and goals are identified first, and then the plan is developed based on the identified vision and goals. Funding availability should be assessed last and realistically based on what is included in the plan.
• Technical analysis and performance measures & plans policies and programs
  • The document should identify the performance metrics that speak to livability and can be used across all regions. Once these metrics have been identified, analyze the technical capabilities that will be required to enable this analysis.
  • Identify the thresholds that define success.
  • In addition to having good metrics, it is necessary to develop a process for using these metrics
• Project implementation strategies
  • Develop useful design standards and guidelines, particularly as they relate to the intersection of planning and engineering. Having effective tools ensures that plans are translated into reality.
  • Shorten funding cycles.
• Communications and outreach
  • Present information clearly, succinctly, and in an attractive way.
  • Involve people who are well versed in graphics and design to help convey the messages.
  • Reach out to the general public.
  • The message should focus on the economic benefits of livability.
  • Identify new partner agencies that can help sell and convey the messages about smart growth. For example, the green realtor certification program could prove to be an effective partner.
  • Look at the location efficiencies by analyzing housing and transportation costs associated with housing location choices.

Group 2

• Integrated planning process
  • All plans—both general and specific—should address livability. If one plan ignores the topic of livability, there is a risk that livability will not be properly addressed.
  • Meaningful dialogue and discussion is important.
  • As plans are updated, they should be adapted and modernized to address and incorporate livability standards.
  • Elected officials must buy in to the process.
• Community visions and goals
  • Departments must define the working area.
  • It is important to have short-, mid-, and long-term visions.
  • Go for the quick successes that will bring the most bang for the buck. These examples can help community members' view and recognize the value of livability standards.
  • Require annual reports to check on the status of project progress. This will help to remind people in a subtle way of what they have looked at in the past and the goals toward which they are working.
• Technical analysis and performance measures & Plans policies and programs
  • Consider a wide variety of issues, as it is important to consider the entire package and not select a small number of issues on which to focus.
• Communications and outreach
  • Work with the marketing community to develop a message that ties livability to the economy and return on investment.
  • Develop a national clearinghouse for livability and use it as a resource for communities that may be struggling to implement livability.
  • Consider using social media and web 2.0 to spread the message.
  • Use methods that community organizations are already using to spread the message to identify what works best in a particular area.
  • Always emphasize the long-term cost and fiscal sustainability.
  • Differentiate the products by target market. Messaging needed to engage technical staff is often very different from the messages that resonate with the public.

Group 3

• Integrated planning process & Community visions and goals
  • Focus on an integrated approach at the regional level for implementing livability. Align this approach with Federal funding opportunities.
• Technical analysis and performance measures
  • Recognize that regions are different across the nation. Federal agencies could develop a framework for analysis with a key menu on analysis tools that would support decisions for a variety of different regions.
  • Develop a place-based approach to addressing local needs. This could be in the form of a FHWA analysis toolbox.
• Plans policies and programs
  • Help ensure that plans are feasible.
  • Recognize the importance of getting good buy-in early on from those who will be implementing the projects.
  • Highlight the Context Sensitive Solution approach.
  • Focus on developing a shared vision through improved scoping during the planning phase.
• Communications and outreach
  • Framing the message is very important. Use terminology to which people can relate, personalize the message and tie it to quality of life issues and choice, and highlight community benefits.

Group 4

• Integrated planning process
  • The key issues are facilitating coordination between transportation and land use.
  • The Federal government should provide examples and research on best practices to help local governments implement these strategies at the local level.
• Community visions and goals
  • Focus on goal setting.
  • Be context sensitive and recognize that there are different priorities at different levels. The approach to solutions will change depending on the geographic level at which it is being implemented.
  • There is a lack of alignment between the steps involved in developing local goals through to securing funding. Sometimes changes in goals are required in order to secure funding. This needs to change.
• Technical analysis and performance measures
  • Move away from traditional measures.
  • Recognize that transportation measures tend to be outcome-focused.
  • Help agencies develop tools to build regional models and measure outcomes.
  • Focus on existing transportation research centers to provide a prescribed research agenda. There is almost one research center per large MPO, which could help focus national research.
  • Better understand people's behavioral decisions related to transportation.
  • Look at a holistic outcome rather than just a single outcome. For example, change the analysis of highway Level of Service.
• Plans policies and programs
  • Structures such as up front agreements and cooperative agreements can be helpful in bringing partners together in a more formalized manner.
  • Change design manuals to make complete streets planning the default. Mainstream this process to help embed it into people's thinking.
  • Move away from the exception process.
• Communications and outreach
  • Incorporate case studies to spread the word about best practices.
  • The peer-to-peer aspect of communication is important. Identify different ways to facilitate communication among peers. This is particularly important for conversations between engineers and State DOT engineers.
  • Communicate the economic benefits, as this is especially important for communicating with local electives.
  • Recognize that the message needs to change depending on the audience.

Group 5

• Integrated planning process
  • Improve the integration between and within land use and transportation plans and comprehensive plans. Currently, there is segmentation between them.
  • Include a basic explanation of what is meant by "good planning." Provide a technical-friendly description about planning for non-planners.
  • Recognize the importance of performance measures.
• Community visions and goals
  • Identify the process links to implementation. Break down the process into its distinct elements.
  • Recognize the importance of visualization.
  • Include case studies that discuss challenges and missed opportunities as well as successes so that people reading those case studies can not only achieve what had been achieved in the examples, but also go beyond that and avoid the challenges.
• Technical analysis and performance measures
  • Recognize the natural carrying capacity of areas. This idea has not been fully explored thus far.
  • Provide a menu of performance measures. Include information on the benefits of livability in a format that is readily available, and easy to use and apply. For example, providing X service will result in Y benefit.
  • Use network analysis in order to set better performance measures for the long-term. The network analysis would be different than the Context Sensitive Solution approach, as this could be applied at the regional, local, or Statewide level.
• Plans policies and programs
  • Use a policy filter as a way to bridge current gaps in decisionmaking. Ask the important questions before investing in something.
  • Use pre-qualification criteria. Consider developing a certification for grant programs.
  • Make sure that the plans, policies, and programs translate into design standards so that they make it through the entire process.
• Project implementation strategies
  • Provide guidance on securing local political acceptance and buy-in. Fight the "quick buck" syndrome, as projects that are funded quickly may not necessarily meet the goals of a community.
  • Include good advice on keeping the development community engaged.
  • Professional organizations such as the American Planning Association, the American Association of Architects, may be able to offer advice to government associations on developing assistance programs. Many professional organizations have assistance programs where they bring in people with expertise and discuss a variety of issues to produce holistic results.
  • Recognize the difference between sub-area as compared to corridor planning. The concept of corridor visioning is positive, but it is important to look at the sub-area level as well.
• Communications and outreach
  • Social media is a key tool.
  • Developing a clearinghouse would be good.
  • FHWA provides a lot of networking assistance for programs like safe routes to schools. This model should be used to provide something similar for State agencies.

Identifying Opportunities:

Briefly, Harrison Rue summarized the previous workshop feedback about the different audiences for the final materials and the list of possible elements in the toolbox that FHWA will subsequently be creating. The potential audiences are FHWA division offices, MPOs, DOTs, local governments, Federal agencies, policymakers/ decisionmakers, general interested public. The draft toolbox concepts are in the table below.

Closing and Next Steps:

To finish the day, the facilitators and FHWA thanked participants and explained the next steps in the creation of the supporting guidance materials for organizations around the country that are interested in pursuing or advancing livability in transportation efforts in their community.

Evaluation Forms & Changes for Next Meeting:

In general, workshop participants reviewed the workshop favorably. The facilitators added a one-on-one discussion activity following the afternoon presentations in order to help participants stay engaged in the conversation. Participants enjoyed the one-on-one exercise following the regional presentations, and so this format was incorporated into the Denver workshop as well. During the afternoon "Regional Livability Planning Strategies" discussion, the discussion built on the elements discussed in other workshops to help gather more input on the potential primer elements. While participants enjoyed the format of having regional presentations followed by small breakout discussions, some of the participants thought the regional presentations were too long and could have been shortened. One participant requested that the workshop go deeper into the issues and go beyond the high, conceptual level. Because of these recommendations, the Denver workshop will follow a similar format and incorporate the one-on-one discussion activity into the afternoon agenda. It will also follow a similar format for the "Regional Livability Planning Strategies" discussion to build on elements discussed in the first four workshops.

Workshop Participants

Federal Observers

Consultant Team

Livability Examples Provided by Sacramento Participants

In order to draw on the vast experience and knowledge of the selected participants, participants were asked to send the facilitators relevant information on best practices related to livability within their communities prior to the workshop. This information, along with the information that regional representatives presented during the workshop, are listed below. This information serves as an informal collection of examples that could be used in future guidebook/primer efforts when discussing best practices and developing case studies.

• Mason County Transportation Authority, Mason Transit Community Center, http://www.masontransit.org/community/ctransctr.html
  • "Chapter 1: Public Engagement" (file sent by David O'Connell) discussing public engagement strategy for the Mason Community Transit Center project (January 2009)
• Reconnecting America, "Realizing the Potential for Sustainable and Equitable TOD," (November 2009), http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/resource-center/books-and-reports/2009/realizing-the-potential-for-sustainable-equitable-tod/
• City of Las Vegas
  • Green Building 2.0 Program, http://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/files/GreenBuilding_Brochure_Final.pdf (PDF)
  • CELEBRATE Employee Program (an employee-based effort to increase the sustainability and efficiency of city's day-to-day operations), http://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/sustaininglasvegas/16027.htm
  • Club Ride (works with employers and commuters in the Las Vegas Valley to establish custom commute options programs and get commuters to try new modes for getting to work), http://www.rtcsnv.com/club_ride/
  • "Las Vegas 2020 Master Plan—Transportation & Streets and Highways Element," http://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/files/Transportation_Streets_Hwys_Element.pdf (PDF)
  • "Las Vegas 2020 Master Plan—Transportation Trails Element," http://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/files/TransTrailsElmnt.pdf (PDF)
  • "Las Vegas 2020 Master Plan—Transit Element," http://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/files/Transit_Element.pdf (PDF)
  • Walkable Community and Corridor Plans, http://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/Government/19709.htm
  • Unified Development Code http://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/files/CLV_Unified_Development_Code.pdf (PDF)
• Hawaii Department of Transportation
  • Complete Streets Task Force, http://hidot.hawaii.gov/?SearchableText=complete+streets
  • Long-range General Plan Update and Regional Development Plan Updates (These regional plans include elements of complete streets and sustainability, and all city and State agencies are supposed to keep these principles in mind when developing their long range "functional" plans.), http://honoluludpp.org/Planning/OahuGenPlan.asp
  • Transit-Oriented Development Program, http://honoluludpp.org/Planning/
  • HUD and DOT Grant to implement a Transit-Oriented Housing Strategy, http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/States/hawaii/news/HUDNo.2010-10-20
• California Department of Transportation
  • California Interregional Blueprint, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/californiainterregionalblueprint/
  • Smart Mobility Framework, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ocp/smf.html
  • Complete Streets, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ocp/complete_streets.html
  • Regional Blueprint Planning Program, http://calblueprint.dot.ca.gov/
• Sacramento Area Council of Governments, Blueprint, http://www.sacregionblueprint.org/
• Local Government Commission, La Jolla Boulevard, Bird Rock, San Diego Road Diet and Roundabouts, http://www.lgc.org/issues/communitydesign/street_design.html
• Regional Transportation Commission
  • Complete Streets Study, http://www.rtcsnv.com/mpo/plansstudies/completestreets/index.cfm
  • Current project efforts related to constructing a regional network of bike lanes and trails, http://www.rtcsnv.com/mpo/projects/index.cfm
• City of University Place, WA, City vision for redeveloping Bridgeport Way and Grandview Drive, http://www.ci.university-place.wa.us/Page27.aspx (general information)