Skip to content U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway AdministrationU.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration
Office of Planning, Environment, & Realty (HEP)

Denver, Colorado Summary

PDF files can be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader®

Discussion Summary:

The Denver workshop discussion emphasized concerns of small towns and rural areas in trying to implement livability. Key discussion points included:

This workshop culminated with the full development of ideas by the participants, building on the previous workshop participants' efforts. 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.

Picture of people in a breakout group talking together around tables at the Denver Regional Livability Workshop
Denver workshop discussions.

Workshop Specifics:

EPA Region 8 Office
1595 Wynkoop Street
Denver, CO 80202

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

Welcome and Introductions:

Lucy Garliauskas, Director of FHWA's Office of Human Environment welcomed everyone to the workshop and thanked EPA for hosting the workshop at the Region 8 office. Ms. Garliauskas discussed the USDOT's role in the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, which focuses on encouraging and facilitating a national dialogue about how to make wise decisions about using scarce resources, particularly as it relates to transportation investments. The Office of Human Environment has recently focused on defining the role of FHWA in advancing livability, which centers on facilitating people's mobility rather than the mobility of cars. The Office is also emphasizing a multidisciplinary multimodal approach to transportation decisionmaking.

Representatives from the regional Partnership agencies provided additional opening remarks. John Cater, Division Administrator for FHWA Colorado Division Office highlighted Region 8's efforts related to the Partnership. The regional partnership members have met regularly since the partnership started and they have also developed a common site where relevant information and resources are posted and shared. Charmaine Knighton, Deputy Regional Administrator for FTA Region 8 noted that FTA has been working on livability-related concepts for a while, but the new partnership efforts have highlighted the silos that still exist and need to be eliminated in order to help communities implement livability. For example, interagency grant review and selection is helpful in bringing people together to discuss practices and how they can be implemented across a variety of contexts. Eddie Sierra, Acting Assistant Regional Administrator for EPA Region 8 discussed the use of brownfields funding to support charrette efforts that are focused on building most sustainable communities, particularly as it relates to energy and stormwater management. Additionally, EPA is focusing on helping provide people with choices on how they arrive at their destination so that community residents can live, work, and play as they desire. Richard Garcia, Regional Administrator for HUD Region 8 Office noted that the mountain west has a number of opportunities for infill development and transit construction, which can help advance the partnership for regional sustainability. In the long term, many of these projects will help to create livable communities with a mix of housing, a range of incomes, various economic development opportunities, and transit access. Following these opening remarks, 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. Mr. Rue noted that the day's workshop would focus in particular on rural areas and the livability concerns facing those areas.

Identifying Challenges to Livability:

Harrison Rue from ICF International reviewed the primary challenges identified at the four previous workshops. Keeping these challenges in mind, participants were asked to focus on the following three questions during a large group discussion session:

  1. What are the big challenges to implementing transportation solutions that support and advance livable communities?
  2. How are the challenges different in rural areas (including towns and small cities)?
  3. What is one solution that has worked for your agency?

Participants identified six 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. Funding tailored to projects → not solving problems from a broad-based multimodal perspective
    • The lack of dedicated livability funding presents a barrier to working on multimodal complete streets projects. It is difficult to identify ways to complete multimodal projects with the funding that is currently available.
    • It is difficult to coordinate different types of funding sources for livability projects, as they tend to take an integrated approach and cross a number of topic areas. It is important to consider thinking about solutions from a systemic approach rather than an individual project approach. Without a change to funding, the ability to implement systematic change is limited. This change in approach may or may not be more difficult to implement in rural areas.
    • Rural areas face a continuous barrier to implementing livability due to lack of funding. Many rural areas are interested in livability planning, but are unable to pay for implementation or maintenance.
    • There is a lack of follow-through from design through to construction.
    • Smaller communities need help in brokering access to the different funding opportunities and pots of money so that they can pursue livability.
    • Many people have been trained in an old transportation paradigm where they view every problem as a transportation problem. In order to overcome this view, it is important to identify broad purpose and goals in the beginning so that the project is not narrowed to one mode from the very beginning. By keeping the goals broad, it reduces the probability that there will be a guaranteed outcome before the approaches have been examined in terms of cost effectiveness and ability to address the need.
      • To ensure a broad perspective from the beginning, it is important to have discussions early on in the project development phrase in order to define the project and make sure that a variety of features are considered and discussed. Through defining the project scope, these discussions should also identify whether or not the project would duplicate prior efforts.
      • It is important to involve nontraditional players who are interested in advancing livability projects so that the resulting TIP or STIP is truly reflective of what is going on in the State.
    • Develop meaningful performance measures so that practitioners can draw on concepts that are meaningful to people.
    • In rural areas, it would be helpful to provide access to expertise for those planners who are unaware of how to go about addressing livability issues. This could be addressed by hiring a livability "generalist" At the regional or county level. Given the lack of expertise with livability in rural areas in particular, it is important to have generalists who understand the overall concept of livability, but are not dedicated to one area. This can help to eliminate silos. As many rural areas rarely have a separate departments dedicated to specific functions, it is important to have someone dedicated to this issues.
  2. Measures of traffic flow → speed and capacity dominates livability considerations
    • Measuring traffic flow should account for alternative modes of transportation. There is currently a dominance of an automotive vehicle traffic flow approach to planning. There is a need to overcome the idea that traffic flow should only focus on vehicles and that vehicle capacity/speed should not account for alternative modes. Altering these measurements can help support alternative performance measures as well as help to shift funding priorities, as many funding sources are tied to traditional vehicle traffic flow measurements.
    • Consider that standards may not work across all community contexts. In many areas, the State and local standards are very different.
      • Identify how to begin the conversation about what is really needed and paying for this through local funds.
  3. Single-minded approach to solutions → need a broader framework to meet needs
    • Identify how programs can help align livability principles and project focus. For those projects operating within existing developments, there is an opportunity to retrofit existing infrastructure to be more multimodal-friendly.
    • When developing solutions, keep the perspective of the customer in mind. It is important to start simply and build from that. The end goal should be to help people have the best day possible.
    • Even within local jurisdictions, it is difficult to get partners to discuss ideas related to livability with one another. Going beyond this to collaborate on a regional vision in order to elevate these ideas and market them at the State level is even more difficult. The challenges are not limited to interagency collaboration between jurisdictions, but rather between the different agencies within one locality.
    • Help local communities understand that they are involved in the conversation about regional livability, and that the results of decisions made in other localities extends to their local community. Regional players need to understand the benefits to implementing livability projects in their community, as well as in other regional communities.
    • Recognize that very different approaches work in different contexts. For example, the tools and approaches that work within urban areas do not necessarily work within rural areas. In many cases, this even requires a completely new and different set of approaches and tools for each area.
    • Many small towns in rural areas are struggling with population growth related to the retirement community development. This adds a new dimension of the unique needs of an aging population.
      • Some of these needs include developing bus and van services to ensure that those residents who cannot drive can still access the services that they need. While it is likely that multiple modes will be needed, it may involve an on-demand service approach. This approach is very different than what would be used in an urban area. It is important to gain support from congressional leaders to build in new types of requirements related to these needs.
    • Transforming the "project pipeline" into a "problem pipeline" is an important switch that needs to occur. This approach of identifying a solution to a problem rather than to a project will require new tools.
      • Master planning can play a role in this change; however, until the TIP and STIP are no longer the focus for funding, steps cannot be taken to move forward.
      • Construct a framework for advancing projects by identifying the assembly of needs, clarifying what the pipeline would look like, and determining how it would function. The challenge will be in finding the right kinds of projects that support and facilitate both rural and suburban needs.
      • It may be possible to have a new framework by changing the dynamic and reframing the pipeline discussion early on, before the TIP and STIP are developed. The reframing should happen during the comprehensive and/or general plan development, before project money is assigned. Communities can then focus on developing a broader vision for the community in response to current, identified challenges. Changing this framework will allow for the TIP and STIP to be responsive to the community and/or general plan.
      • For rural communities in particular, the framework may need to be different, as these areas tend to identify projects based on the funding outlined in the TIP and STIP. Rural areas generally respond to the conditions on the ground when money becomes available. It would be helpful to allocate money in a different way that is responsive to a community's values.
    • To overcome interagency barriers, become more aware of what is going on in the community, including identifying the customer and the customer's needs. Identify what the choices are and how to make appropriate investments based on these choices.
    • Rural areas do not have the ability to measure across all modes; therefore, in order to develop solutions, metrics should be reported in a more comprehensive way.
  4. Changing land use policy and engaging developer and private sector partnerships
    • Changing land use policies present a challenge to implementing livability.
    • Stress the importance of land use as it relates to supporting transportation decisions. Housing choices must be incorporated into the decisionmaking process, as housing location factors directly into transportation trip decisions. Simply providing transportation land use and mode choice is not a sufficient choice in itself. People must have the option of living close to their ultimate trip destinations so that they have the option of making shorter trips.
    • It is difficult to secure buy-in for changing land use policies. The local communities must be involved in the land use decisions, particularly about how they relate to the community's vision for livability. Private sector involvement from developers and lenders is also very important. Government resources alone will not allow many communities to achieve their visions, so having the private sector involvement will play a key role in implementation. Having a working partnership with local government involvement allows for an integrated approach and helps to eliminate many of the barriers that could arise when working to implement livability principles.
  5. Retrofit State highways running through small communities → local capacity to initiate change
    • Communities that were overdesigned in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s with a highway as their main street struggle with retrofitting this development pattern. Many of these communities struggle with identifying ways to change this pattern. Sometimes these communities are not aware of what change they want to put in place. Additionally, barriers arise when working with the State DOT to gain support for making a change, as many State DOTs view these places as capacity corridors rather than areas for placemaking. As is proposed with the reauthorization bill, it would be helpful to have a way to tie Federal money to placemaking, particularly for communities with high capacity roads running through them. With this new plan, application-based grants would be used to fund livability projects that include a broader variety of components that is not just limited to one mode. Many State DOTs are opposed to this change, as it takes away their contract authority and their funding to address basis system preservation needs. To avoid this issue, a new category of funding would need to be made available.
    • As there have not been any major State highway projects constructed for a long time, the current challenge is working with the existing system and identifying ways to retrofit these highways to accommodate new purposes beyond moving cars through towns. Existing highways do not serve any of the local multimodal transportation needs. While State DOTs have generally been open to these changes, one of the barriers facing this change is the institutional capacity of changing the roads. For smaller towns, the county transportation department could become the planning department and begin addressing this issue.
    • Many State DOTs have focused solely on highways, and this focus needs to shift to accommodate a new focus in many rural communities on livability. State DOTs should begin a discussion with rural areas about what is needed and what the current budget can accommodate. Many of these areas are interested in enhancing different components such as sidewalks, bike/pedestrian, and their downtown core as a part of livability, and the State DOT can play an important role in implementing these changes.
      • For those towns where State roads pass through the downtown, it is often difficult to gain support for adding a sidewalk along these routes. Often, the local highway technical engineers do not view sidewalk requests as a priority, even though it is a minimal cost. It is important to address the funding silos and the lack of lifecycle analysis as it relates to funding approval. Altering how project value is defined so that it accounts for long-term and lifecycle costs will be important in helping to shift the discussion. For sidewalks in particular, FHWA requirements are in place that require sidewalk construction unless the developer can identify a reason why it should not be constructed. It is important to educate FHWA staff about these policies so that they begin asking questions about why livability measures such as sidewalks are not being supported. This cycle needs to be changed.
      • It is important to demonstrate the use of funds.
  6. Other
    • Communication Efforts to Support Livability Implementation
      • Communicate and quantify the benefits of livability projects.
      • Recognize that messaging will need to change in response to local differences and contexts.
      • Educate local decisionmakers and State decisionmakers about the concept of livability so that they are informed and can make the best decision possible.
      • Better define the size of a rural community. For regional planning grants, a population of 200,000 and below is considered rural whereas FTA considers 50,000 and below to be rural. This interagency disconnect on definitions presents challenges for planning.
      • Recognize that rural is not a blanket term that can be applied nationally. There are many gradations of what is meant by "rural," and community resource needs vary based on these differences. This is particularly true when comparing rural communities on the east versus those on the west.
      • It is difficult to identify what a "rural housing program" includes, or how it is defined. More research is needed on figuring out how housing functions in rural areas.
      • Greater public engagement and involvement is needed. Simply informing people about proposed plans without a discussion does not quality as public engagement. The public needs to be part of the planning discussion so that beneficial outcomes result.
    • Rural Issues
      • Rural States have limited capacity, staff resources, or staff knowledge to address the lack of capacity at a local level. Particularly for small cities and towns, there is lack of staff and exposure to new, innovative ideas.
      • For those gateway communities near national parks and refuges, there is a need for further engagement with Federal land management agency partners. There are many unique challenges related to land use, economic development, and local engagement. The dynamics for these communities are very different, as these areas succeed based on visitation numbers.
      • Capturing the differences in what is meant by the term "rural" becomes a problem when identifying how to award funding. Rural areas want to be viable competitors for grants; however, given resource and expertise limitations, some of these areas may not be well situated to address livability challenges effectively.
      • Many issues in rural areas stem from the fact that the local economy has collapsed. Without rebuilding these economies, it is difficult to address any of the pressing issues. Given that, when funding does become available, these areas do not tend to focus on the quality of the result or the long-term effects. Identifying a larger, regional economic development strategy that includes rural communities would be helpful. This would help rural areas to identify those value-added projects that should be pursued.
      • Many tribes have very large sections of land in the western States, and the roadway capacity in these tribal communities is minimal to nonexistent. Oftentimes these communities must decide between one road or another, so one roadway is usually left out. Among tribal communities, there is a wide range of sophistication and level of relationship with regional areas. There are very different processes and timelines. Tribal communities are very different than rural or small town areas, and therefore require unique descriptors and tools.
      • Keep in mind that rural towns do not have the training, staff, and/or resources to do much visioning or plan development. Identifying a way to provide those services to rural communities would be helpful.
    • Now that gas prices are high, people want to move in closer to town, which can help generate support for livability.
    • It is important to identify ways to get people out of their cars and convince them to use alternative modes.
    • Recognize that, beyond 2014, the STIP will only contain projects related to system preservation, as there will not be any funding for new projects, capacity, etc. The biggest challenge will therefore be developing accurate methods for cost/benefit analyses to determine those projects in which areas should invest.
      • How livability is defined within this context will also change.
      • Funding requirements will likely shift to incorporate a method for vetting how funding will be spent up-front in the process.
    • Recognize the shift in demographics. Traditionally, retirees have moved out of town into rural areas; however, this may change when they realize access to services is limited. The suburban demographic is also shifting. More research is needed on these populations and demographic shifts to understand the housing choices that the younger generation prefers, and the future trends. Reaching out to the variety of populations requires significant amounts of money and time.
      • Currently, many of these rural areas operate by planning in response to the money that is available in the TIP and/or STIP rather than waiting for appropriate funding to address pressing needs.
    • Many areas are struggling with their maintenance responsibilities. Particularly for those areas that have been built to high standards, the cost of maintaining this infrastructure has become extremely high. In some areas, these costs are so high that they cannot afford to plow and/or shovel the sidewalks or maintain the landscape. The issue of maintaining roadways needs to be expanded to other facilities in order to generate other, viable maintenance options.

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.

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 six 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. Sandi Kohrs from Colorado DOT discussed a number of the Department's sustainability and livability initiatives, including the Transportation and Environmental Resource Council (TERC) sustainability subcommittee, their main streets initiative, and a land use and transportation planning integration study. While the governor supports these initiatives, they have largely been successful due to community support and active involvement. Jill Locantore from DRCOG presented on the Board's collaborative approach to addressing regional challenges through Metro Vision, an integrated plan that seeks to incorporate planning elements related to transportation, growth, and environment. The plan emphasizes livability for all ages, with a particular focus on older adults and aging services, in response to growth projections for Denver's older adult population. DRCOG has developed evaluation criteria for the plan's elements based on desired outcomes, which were subsequently tied to quantifiable goals. Will Toor, a Boulder County Commissioner, discussed how the City of Boulder is using an urban growth boundary in order to ensure development is focused in certain areas. As part of the City's approach to transportation, Boulder is focusing on transit service and is working with major employers and the university to redesign the transit network so that it is more bus-based. The City of Boulder measures its improvements through performance measures focused on a variety of topics, including unemployment, foreclosure rate, and the change in mode share. Afterwards, there was a panel discussion, focusing on the key elements of their success:

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. Funding tailored to projects → not solving problems from a broad-based multimodal perspective
  2. Measures of traffic flow → speed and capacity dominates livability considerations
  3. Single-minded approach to solutions → need a broader framework to meet needs
  4. Changing land use policy and engaging developer and private sector partnerships
  5. Retrofit State highways running through small communities → local capacity to initiate change

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 focus on the rural area perspective and consider examples where they had overcome a project challenge in a relevant topic area and use that experience to assist in answering the questions.

Each group provided a quick summary of their discussion.

Funding tailored to projects → not solving problems from a broad-based multimodal perspective

Measures of traffic flow → speed and capacity dominates livability considerations

Single-minded approach to solutions → need a broader framework to meet needs

Changing land use policy and engaging developer and private sector partnerships

Retrofit State highways running through small communities → local capacity to initiate change

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. Patrick Shea, Project Manager and Technical Transportation Specialist for the National Park Service discussed two alternative transportation projects: Zion National Park and Mount Rainier National Park. At Zion, there is a partnership effort between the gateway community and the National Park Service to generate a common solution for transporting visitors while at Mount Rainier, the National Park Service is applying corridor strategies to accomplish solutions. Elaine Clegg, a Boise City Council Representative presented on the region's livability efforts, which included using strategic planning to identify the best places to grow in the region and the best places for transit. Boise is using infill for placemaking in the region. Tom Mason from the Cheyenne MPO highlighted the regional livability efforts, which are built on Plan Cheyenne, a master plan based on various scenarios that are that are planned to work best for the community. This plan has allowed the community, for the first time, to look at how they would want the local public and private lands to be developed. Afterwards, there was a panel discussion, focusing on the key elements of their success:

Harrison Rue directed each participant to turn to the person next to them and, for one minute, 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.

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: planning processes, including community visions and goals, integrated planning processes, technical analysis and performance measures, and plans and policies; implementation and programs; and messaging, communications, and outreach. Mr. Blanton reviewed that the primer is intended to provide some basic information that communities at all scales can apply to their local planning efforts. For this workshop in particular, participants were asked to consider the level of attention that should be devoted to discussing rural elements.

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 the discussion into two, twenty-minute segments where participants were asked to focus on particular elements and answer tailored questions about each. The first discussion focused on the following question, in the context of how they could be applied to integrated planning processes; community visions and goals; technical analysis and performance measures; and plans and policies:

Following this initial discussion, Mr. Whit Blanton reviewed implementation strategies. In particular, he highlighted the value of multimodal corridors and networks, as they provide funding opportunities, leverage existing infrastructure, and can help to reduce capacity needs. When focusing on the maintenance needs of a project, livability is often a more cost effective option. To help with implementation, there is a need to address policies, guidelines, and standards so that they are appropriate to the scale at which they are being applied. The second discussion focused on the following questions, in the context of how they could be applied to implementation strategies:

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

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Group 5

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, and assuming an engaging public involvement process, participants were asked to reflect on the following questions in a large-group setting:

A summary of the participants' discussion is captured below.

Closing and Next Steps:

To finish the day, the ICF facilitators 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.

Lucy Garliauskas thanked everyone for coming. She highlighted that the main goal of the Partnership effort is to promote a new way of thinking about how problems are defined and how practitioners arrive at solutions. This new approach relies heavily on interagency collaboration and involvement. To help advance livability efforts, US DOT has been working to characterize the benefits of livability by gathering statistics and by developing performance measures that help demonstrate these benefits. Ms. Garliauskas reviewed the categories of statistics on which US DOT is focusing: 1) making the case for livability—emphasizing that sustainable communities are in demand; 2) sustainable communities reduce costs for households; 3) benefits to growing regional economies; 4) increase in home value; and 5) increase in health choices. She also highlighted some research efforts that support each of these benefits. This information will ultimately be posted on the USDOT livability partnership website.

Evaluation Forms:

In general, workshop participants reviewed the workshop favorably. The facilitators altered the afternoon format for the "Regional Livability Planning Strategies" discussion so that there were two, twenty-minute small group discussion segments rather than four, fifteen-minute discussion segments. This was the most significant format change from the Sacramento, CA workshop. Regarding the workshop focus, one participant noted that they did not feel well prepared to discuss rural issues and would have enjoyed more notice and guidance about the workshop focus. To help with the rural discussion, one participant requested greater representation from small towns. In addition, two participants requested more of a presence from HUD and EPA as workshop participants to help emphasize the Partnership goals and to balance the high representation from transportation professionals. A number of participants noted that the discussion was very high level and it would have been helpful to narrow the focus. Particularly for the small breakout sessions, some of the participants felt that there was limited guidance and they would have benefited from clearer guidance and desired outcomes. Particularly for the primer discussion, participants were unclear on the task with which they had been provided and the desired outcome from the facilitators. A number of participants requested more peer-to-peer exchange and an opportunity to share stories and experiences.

Workshop Participants

Participant Organization
Andrew Gruber Wasatch Front Regional Council
Brandon Cammarata City of Cheyenne, WY
Candi Beaudry City of Billings, MT
Chris Quinn Regional Transportation District
Craig Casper Pikes Peak Council of Governments
Crissy Fanganello Denver Public Works
Deanne Widauf City of Cheyenne, WY
Elaine Clegg City of Boise, ID City Council
Jeff Sudmeier Colorado DOT
Jill Locantore Denver Regional COG
Josh Deifel City of Casper, WY MPO
Kenneth Johnstone City of Wheat Ridge, CO
Kitty Clemens Denver Regional COG
Kristen Keener Busby Arizona DOT
Mark Wingate Wyoming DOT
Matt Ashby City of Cheyenne, WY
Melissa Antol Tucson DOT
Mike Barton City and County of Missoula, MT
Nick Britton Salt Lake City Planning Division
Patricia Nilsson Boise City Planning and Development Services
Patrick McLaughlin Regional Transportation District
Sandi Kohrs Colorado DOT
Sherry McKibben McKibben + Cooper Architects/Urban Design
Tom Fisher Tucson DOT
Tom Mason Cheyenne MPO
Will Toor Boulder County Commissioner & DRCOG Board Member

Federal Observers

Observer Organization
Aaron Bustow FHWA – Colorado Division Office
Bill Hass FHWA – Colorado Division Office
Charmaine Knighton FTA – Region 8
Cindy Cody EPA
David Beckhouse FTA
Eddie Sierra EPA
Guadalupe M. Herrera HUD
Jeffrey Purdy FHWA – Wyoming Division Office
John Cater FHWA – Colorado Division Office
Larry Anderson FHWA – Central Federal Lands
Lucy Garliauskas FHWA – Headquarters
Patrick Shea National Park Service
Rick Garcia HUD – Region 8
Robin Smith FHWA
Shana Baker FHWA – Headquarters
Stacey Eriksen EPA
Stephanie Lind FHWA – Central Federal Lands
Steve Call FHWA – Utah Division Office

Consultant Team

Consultant Organization
Elizabeth Wallis ICF International
Harrison Rue ICF International
Kathleen Rooney ICF International
Whit Blanton Renaissance Planning Group

Livability Examples Provided by Denver 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.

HUD-DOT-EPA Interagency Partnership | DOT Livability | FTA Livable & Sustainable Communities
Updated: 10/20/2015
HEP Home Planning Environment Real Estate
Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000