[Senate Hearing 111-235]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-235
GREENER COMMUNITIES, GREATER OPPORTUNITIES: NEW IDEAS FOR SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
BANKING,HOUSING,AND URBAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
EXAMINING THE WAYS IN WHICH HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION POLICY CAN WORK
IN COMMON TO MEET FUTURE HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL
NEEDS IN OUR COMMUNITIES
__________
JUNE 16, 2009
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs
Available at: http: //www.access.gpo.gov /congress /senate/
senate05sh.html
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
54-418 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut, Chairman
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
JACK REED, Rhode Island ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii BOB CORKER, Tennessee
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
JON TESTER, Montana DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
MARK R. WARNER, Virginia KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado
Edward Silverman, Staff Director
William D. Duhnke, Republican Staff Director
Mitchell S. Warren, Senior Policy Advisor
Lisa Frumin, Legislative Assistant
Bonnie Graves, FTA Fellow
Dawn Ratliff, Chief Clerk
Devin Hartley, Hearing Clerk
Shelvin Simmons, IT Director
Jim Crowell, Editor
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 2009
Page
Opening statement of Chairman Dodd............................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of:
Senator Tester............................................... 4
Senator Warner............................................... 5
Senator Merkley.............................................. 6
Senator Brown
Prepared statement....................................... 28
Senator Bennet
Prepared statement....................................... 29
WITNESSES
Shaun Donovan, Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban
Development.................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Responses to written questions of:
Chairman Dodd............................................ 45
Senator Shelby........................................... 45
Senator Schumer.......................................... 46
Senator Menendez......................................... 46
Senator Bennet........................................... 46
Senator Crapo............................................ 48
Senator Corker........................................... 48
Ray LaHood, Secretary, Department of the Transportation.......... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Responses to written questions of:
Chairman Dodd............................................ 50
Senator Schumer.......................................... 52
Senator Menendez......................................... 54
Senator Bennet........................................... 56
Senator Crapo............................................ 59
Senator Corker........................................... 60
Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency.. 11
Prepared statement........................................... 40
Responses to written questions of:
Chairman Dodd............................................ 62
Senator Schumer.......................................... 65
Senator Menendez......................................... 66
Senator Bennet........................................... 66
Senator Corker........................................... 69
(iii)
GREENER COMMUNITIES, GREATER OPPORTUNITIES: NEW IDEAS FOR SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met at 9:32 a.m., in room SD-538, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Senator Christopher J. Dodd (Chairman
of the Committee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CHRISTOPHER J. DODD
Chairman Dodd. The hearing will come to order. Let me thank
all of you for being here this morning in what I believe to be
a historic hearing--those words probably get used more
frequently than they should, but I believe this is historic in
that the three witnesses who are with us this morning I don't
believe have ever appeared jointly before this Committee, or
for that matter, any other committee that I know of, at least
going back, and I have looked at the records, where we have had
the Secretary of Housing, the Secretary of Transportation, and
the Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency
together at one hearing on a common theme. So we thank all
three of our Secretaries for being with us and we thank the
audience that has come out this morning and I thank my
colleagues for joining us here. Senator Shelby may be able to
get by--we are not sure yet--this morning, and other Members
who are interested in the subject matter.
Today's title of the hearing is ``Greener Communities,
Greater Opportunities: New Ideas for Sustainable Development
and Economic Growth.'' This is an important subject matter and
all three of our witnesses have wonderful backgrounds and
knowledge and expertise in this area, so I want to begin by
thanking all three of you for being here this morning and
participating in this hearing and this discussion of how we
move forward.
So let me thank you for joining us. I hope all had a
painless commute, by the way, this morning. But if you didn't,
I can understand entirely. I am from Connecticut, and
Connecticut has a long history of understanding what it is to
have a painful commute. Although we love our State, we know
something about rough commutes. Take I-95, the main corridor
that runs through Southern Connecticut. Over the last 50 years,
average daily traffic in the Connecticut Southwest corridor has
increased more than seven-fold, to give you some idea of the
problem.
Imagine you are on your way home from a hard day at the
office, and when you get there, your children are hopefully
waiting for dinner. But at the rate traffic is moving, you are
just hoping you might get there in time for breakfast in the
morning. For 25 minutes, 45 minutes, over an hour, you grit
your teeth and grip the wheel harder as traffic crawls slowly
along the highway. The air is clouded with exhaust from what
seems like millions of cars barely moving at almost $3 a
gallon, and things won't get any easier when you and your
fellow motorists slowly grind along the same road to work the
following morning.
So welcome to the daily commute for far too many residents
in my State and many, many others across this country. It is
not unique to Connecticut. It is becoming not unique at all. It
is becoming more of the standard. So if you know me at all, you
know how I feel about the importance of new transit options.
I have been a longtime advocate for the Tri-City Corridor
that will connect new transit villages, get people off the
roads, and revitalize our regional economies. It will
accomplish this by initiating new commuter rail service and the
110-mile-an-hour intercity train service between New Haven,
Connecticut and Springfield, Massachusetts, with direct
connections to New York City and eventually Boston, as well.
This project is one of my top priorities as it is for the
Connecticut delegation here as well as the people in our State,
and to use this as an example, again, of densely populated
areas and alternative modes of transportation.
But our communities are growing and changing and too often,
our approach to community development policy has been like one
of those cars on the Merritt Parkway in Connecticut, trapped in
gridlock, never moving. It is time to rethink the way we plan
the futures of the places in which we live, work, and raise our
families.
Between 1980 and 2000, the growth of the largest 99 metro
areas in the United States consumed 16 million acres of rural
land. That is about an acre for every new household. With new
population expected to grow by over 150 million people between
2000 and 2050, this land-use trend simply cannot continue for
all the obvious reasons.
Before today, Federal policy has often treated
transportation, housing, and environmental protection as
separate issues, distinct from each other. But that system of
stovepiping simply isn't working and the consequences of
failing to address the way we plan our communities' growth are
many. We will continue to lose our rural land and open spaces.
We will see a worsening of the traffic congestion that has
tripled over the last 25 years. We will continue to pay more
and more at the pump at a time when our family budgets are
already stretched to the max. We will continue to push low-
income families further away from job opportunities. We will
continue to increase greenhouse gas emissions despite the
urgent threat of climate change.
In February, I wrote a letter to President Obama urging him
to establish a White House Office of Sustainable Development to
coordinate housing, transportation, energy, and environmental
policies. The President has been a strong leader on these
issues and he has already shown a willingness to shake up a
Federal Government that hasn't always succeeded when it comes
to addressing related issues in a comprehensive, effective,
holistic way.
Today, following up on that letter, we have invited three
members of the cabinet who don't usually spend as much time in
the same hearing room as they should, in my view. They will be
outlining for us the administration's commitment to sustainable
development, a commitment that recognizes the importance of
working across traditional boundaries to create more cohesive
and collaborative policies.
One important piece of the work that we have to do is to
provide more transportation choices for families in our Nation.
Few States suffer from worse traffic congestion than my home
State of Connecticut does, and the lack of good transit options
costs families more than just inconvenience. In large part due
to congested roadways and the lack of affordable housing and
transit options, Connecticut ranks 49th in the country in
keeping our young people in the State. Meanwhile, living in a
transit-rich neighborhood saves money, on average, as much as
10 percent of a family's budget. This is particularly important
for those living on fixed incomes or struggling to get by in a
tough economy, as people are today.
Improving transportation isn't just about making a daily
commute easier. It is about empowering people to access jobs
and critical services and making things just a little bit
easier for those on a very tight budget. It is a problem that
hurts not only the quality of life for our citizens, but also
opportunities for businesses. So we must improve and expand bus
and rail service, providing new choices for families who would
no longer have to drive to work and creating space on the road
for those who do. And we need to build more and better housing
options near these transit stations.
For instance, my State has developed a program called Home
Connecticut. It makes grants available to towns to plan
incentive housing zones for higher density mixed-income housing
in downtown areas and redeveloped brownfields close to transit
options and job centers. It is a strategic investment in our
economy, our environment, and the quality of our life in
Connecticut. We have already begun to make progress in my State
and we can do more, I believe, across the country with similar
models.
This Committee is currently drafting legislation to provide
incentives for regions to plan future growth in a coordinated
way that reduces congestion, generates good-paying jobs, meets
our environmental and energy goals, protects rural areas and
green space, revitalizes our main streets and urban centers,
creates and preserves affordable housing, and makes our
communities better places to live, to work, and to raise our
families. Our bill will also create a competitive grant program
to provide resources to some of the projects identified in this
planning.
There is a lot we can do in this Committee in this area and
I look forward to continue to work alongside my colleague,
Senator Shelby, the former Chairman of the Committee, and our
colleagues on this Committee, many of whom care as deeply about
this issue as I do, both Democrats and Republicans who are
facing these issues, not just in urban areas on the East and
West Coast, but even in our Midwestern States, where congestion
is accumulating around urban areas.
It is often a great trivia question to ask people, what is
the most urbanized State in America? And you will get all sorts
of answers. Rarely is the answer given, Nevada, but that is the
most urbanized State in America, with roughly 90 to 95 percent
of its population residing in one county, of course, Clark
County around Las Vegas.
So these issues are not just East Coast-West Coast any
longer. Every State in the country, to one degree or another,
is facing these challenges. So what we are advocating here is
not something just for those States that are facing the most
serious problems today, but also planning for what we can down
the road.
Just like I have urged the administration to, I believe we
in the Senate must work in a coordinated and comprehensive
fashion, as well, if we are going to succeed in this effort,
and particularly this Committee will need to work closely with
Senator Barbara Boxer of California's EPW Committee and Senator
Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia's Commerce Committee as we
write the next surface transportation bill, legislation that I
hope will eliminate the stovepipes that I mentioned at the
outset of this hearing within transportation policy and ensure
that it helps to advance broad, good, related to not just
transportation but community development and economic growth,
energy, and environmental issues.
Today, we will hear from witnesses who have already begun
the important collaborative effort within the administration,
public servants who are doing a tremendous job, in my view, and
I commend all three of you for the first 6 months of efforts.
Some of us have had the pleasure already with Shaun Donovan,
who has been in my State of Connecticut, my major cities,
talking about housing and transportation issues. Ray LaHood has
been, I know, around the country, as well, discussing these
issues, as well, with Shaun. And Lisa, we welcome you, as well,
and your tremendous efforts in the environmental policies, as
well.
This administration is today making a significant welcome
commitment to sustainable development and livable communities
and we are eager this morning to discuss how we on this
Committee can be better partners in helping our communities
plan for a much more prosperous and enjoyable future.
With that, let me turn to my three colleagues who are here
with us this morning, if they would like to make any brief
opening comment before turning to our witnesses. Jon.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JON TESTER
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
you for calling this hearing and I want to thank the three
witnesses today for the great job that you have done in the
short time you have been in your positions. I very much
appreciate your proactive nature, each and every one of you. I
have had the chance to work with Shaun and Lisa directly. I
will be working with Ray LaHood here in a couple of weeks
directly. But the truth is that you folks have done some great
work in a short period of time and we look forward to more
great work as time goes on.
Secretary Donovan was in Montana the end of May at one of
the sessions we had. He talked about policy solutions and not
thinking in silos, stovepipes, bringing people together and
actually getting a good dialog going and getting more bang for
the buck and getting better service to the people. I think that
is what we are here for today, ``Greener Communities, Greater
Opportunities, and New Ideas for Sustainable Development'' as
they apply to housing and transportation and water and
environment. All those things, there is a synergy that can be
related between them, and I think that this hearing is a good
hearing to try to promote that, quite honestly. I don't think
that you can have sustainable communities without a good
housing program nor without a good transportation program, and
absolutely without water, just to name three things that come
to mind.
So as this hearing moves forward, I am going to appreciate
your perspective on how we can get things done to make things
better in this country from a community standpoint and kind of
how we plot out the road map for the future, really.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity.
Chairman Dodd. Thank you, Senator Tester.
Senator Warner is--Mark and I have known each other for a
long time, but as Governor of Virginia, I know this was one of
your top priorities, dealing with this. Of course, all of us
here who serve in Congress are familiar with Northern Virginia
and the congestion----
Senator Warner. Right. We have no congestion in the Greater
Capital Area.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARK R. WARNER
Senator Warner. I apologize to you folks in Connecticut who
have still got it. We have, of course, solved all that problem
completely here in the Greater Capital Area.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, and I
thank these wonderful witnesses.
I will reserve most of my comments until the questions, but
I just want to echo what Senator Tester has said, to get out of
the stovepipes. I know land-use planning and transportation
planning are normally thought of as a State and local issue,
but having some notion of what can we do from the Federal
standpoint to kind of marry those two areas better together was
something I am anxious to hear about. I am particularly anxious
to hear from all of you about a concept that I know the
Chairman has worked on, the green bank idea and how we can use
that replenishing asset to make investments. Secretary LaHood
and I have already had a number of conversations about the
opportunity to think at DOT outside of the silos.
I didn't fully appreciate, and this may be a little
inappropriate to say, but as a Governor, I always would get
very frustrated with the Federal Government, why we don't have
a comprehensive, logical transportation policy in this country.
Now that I am a member of the Senate, I understand that better,
why we don't, because of just the historic jurisdictional
divisions in terms of how we think about transportation policy.
I don't think we are probably going to change those
jurisdictional divisions, but, oh boy, Ray, anything we can do
from a Federal DOT standpoint to think more holistically, more
multi-modally, and which obviously ties into greener
communities in terms of how we think about mobility and
connectivity as opposed to just VMTs is something that is
really important.
So Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you having this hearing.
Chairman Dodd. Certainly. Thank you very much.
Senator Merkley is a former Speaker of the House and
understands these issues. I mentioned Western States, and this
is not just the highly urbanized States that face these issues.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEFF MERKLEY
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I can tell
you all that from Oregon's perspective, you all constitute the
livability dream team. We are just delighted to have you
working hard on affordable housing, on transportation that
works in an urban environment, and certainly expanding the
impact of housing and transportation in a positive way on the
environment. So I am delighted to have you all here.
Oregon is a State that has been wrestling with this for a
long time. Apologies to my colleagues from California, who are
not here, but California was an inspiration to Oregon in that
we wanted to avoid the sort of sprawl we were seeing to the
South when California was growing very rapidly. So we
experimented with statewide planning and it has gone through a
number of initiatives and citizens have affirmed their
determination to continue on that path with urban growth
boundaries to create livability, to improve transportation, to
make it more cost effective, to save energy, a whole host of
things. So I look forward to your testimony and thank you for
the work you are doing.
Chairman Dodd. Thank you very much, Senator.
Welcome, all three of you. We are delighted to have you
with us. Secretary Donovan, we will start with you and then we
will go to Ray LaHood. Obviously, any supporting data and
information you have, along with opening statements and
materials from our colleagues, will be included in the record,
as well.
STATEMENT OF SHAUN DONOVAN, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Secretary Donovan. Good morning, Chairman Dodd and Members
of the Committee. It is a great pleasure to be here today to
speak about the critical link between housing, transportation,
and environmental policy. I want to thank you and your
Committee for your leadership in developing and pushing for
innovative and integrated approaches to these issues.
Today, we announce a landmark agreement between the three
agencies before your Committee that includes six livability
principles that will guide our work together, representing a
powerful statement of common goals, strategies, and purpose for
communities across the country whose vitality in the 21st
century depends on our ability to work together in partnership.
Earlier this year, I was pleased to testify before the
House with my colleague Secretary Ray LaHood from the
Department of Transportation. Since that March testimony, we
have taken important steps to improve coordination between our
Departments. I am especially pleased to have EPA Administrator
Lisa Jackson join us today as a partner in this effort,
providing further evidence of our commitment to collaboration
and coordination across the entire Federal Government.
More than ever, I am convinced, as you said, Chairman Dodd,
that solutions to the myriad challenges facing our housing
markets must be addressed in a comprehensive way to reduce our
dangerous dependence on foreign oil and drive down energy costs
for consumers and businesses alike. This means that HUD, in
collaboration with our partner agencies, must find new
integrated solutions to the multi-dimensional challenges faced
by cities, suburbs, and rural areas.
As you know, our budget proposal includes a $150 million
Sustainable Communities Initiative to be managed by a new
Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities. As the Chairman
said, we need to synchronize climate change, energy, community
development, housing, and transportation policy in the most
comprehensive, holistic way possible. I believe creating an
Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities inside HUD to
serve as a single point of contact with other Federal agencies
is the best way we can achieve that goal. Already, these kind
of offices at our partner agencies have helped break down
barriers to change. They are proving to be a successful model
for interagency coordination and collaboration.
Under our Sustainable Communities Initiative, HUD and DOT
would jointly administer a $100 million fund to encourage
metropolitan regions, via competition, to develop integrated
housing, land-use, and transportation plans, and to use those
integrated plans to drive the planning and decision making of
localities. The goal of this initiative is to articulate a
vision for growth tailored to specific metropolitan markets
that Federal housing, transportation, and other Federal
investments can support.
Funding would generally be used to support the development
of integrated, state-of-the-art regional development plans that
use the latest data and most sophisticated analytic modeling
and mapping tools available. These efforts will benefit urban,
suburban, and rural communities alike, but require a level of
integrated planning that spans jurisdictional boundaries in new
and unprecedented ways. We simply can't afford to be
territorial about these issues any longer.
The Sustainable Communities Initiative in our fiscal year
2010 budget also includes $40 million in grants that will be
used to support metropolitan and local leaders in making
market-shifting changes in local zoning and land-use rules and
another $10 million for research.
With the costs of transportation now approaching those of
housing for many working families, we will work to jointly
develop a Housing and Transportation Affordability Index with
DOT. When you buy a car, you know very clearly what its energy
efficiency is because there is a sticker on the window. We need
the same thing for our houses and our buildings. An
Affordability Index will give consumers and businesses alike
the information they need to make informed choices that meet
their needs, creating a more dynamic, efficient marketplace.
That is why we intend to share all this data, research, and
evaluation with the private sector, to catalyze innovation and
maximize market efficiency.
We will also conduct an intensive review of our respective
programs to determine how to support the marriage of housing
and transportation and to emphasize location efficiency.
Included in this work will be a historic effort to develop data
and bolster research to better track housing and transportation
expenditures by location.
Since March when we announced our agreement with DOT, we
have made significant progress. Teams from our agencies are
meeting on a weekly basis. Further, we are pleased to announce
that EPA is now a full partner. They will work with HUD and DOT
to address water infrastructure issues, expand technical
assistance to State and local governments, return brownfield
sites to productive use, and address hazardous waste and other
barriers to reinvestment in older communities.
As a result of our agency's work, I am pleased to join with
my DOT and EPA colleagues to announce a Statement of Livability
Principles. These principles provide a set of guidelines for
each agency to formulate and implement policies and programs.
More importantly, they mean that we will all be working off the
same playbook. For the first time, the Federal Government will
speak with one voice on housing, environmental, and
transportation policy.
The first principle, providing more transportation choices,
addresses our need to expand the options available to American
families, whether commuting to work, dropping children off at
school, or running errands.
The second principle, promoting equitable, affordable
housing, is at the heart of HUD's mission. In order for our
neighborhoods to thrive, our regions to grow, and our Nation to
prosper, we must support communities that provide opportunities
for people of all ages, incomes, races, and ethnicities to
live, work, learn, and play together.
The third principle, increasing economic competitiveness,
pinpoints the need to coordinate housing, transportation, and
environmental policy to make us more competitive and
productive. Our Nation's ability to compete in the global
economy is dependent on how quickly and efficiently we can
connect our labor force to education and employment
opportunities.
The fourth principle, supporting existing communities,
identifies the need to support community revitalization, build
upon existing public investments, and preserve our Nation's
rural land.
The fifth principle, leveraging Federal investment, focuses
on increasing the effectiveness of American government at all
levels. We want to boost the capacity of local communities to
more effectively plan for future growth and support the ability
of local communities to think and act regionally.
Finally, the last principle, valuing communities and
neighborhoods, brings the entire effort together. We must
ensure that Federal investment supports safe, healthy, and
walkable communities, whether in cities, suburbs, or rural
areas.
So we have our playbook, Mr. Chairman, strong evidence that
our efforts to find productive solutions together will rise to
the challenges before us. But the real test of our commitment
will be in putting the principles into action. I propose to do
that in several ways.
First, over the next few months, I intend to implement a
process at HUD led by Deputy Secretary Sims to engage every
program and every office at headquarters and in the field to
identify the barriers that they encounter in implementing these
principles. I will also be asking for their ideas, suggestions,
and recommendations. This must be an inclusive process and an
inclusive process depends on listening.
Second, I will ask our program offices to incorporate these
principles in HUD's next annual performance and management
plans, and we will charge the 82 field offices around the
country with bringing these principles to life in the
neighborhoods of America.
Last, we will share with you the performance measures that
we are developing for each of these principles so that they can
be measured in tangible outcomes on the ground. As I told you
during my confirmation, Mr. Chairman, I am a numbers guy. I
believe in evidence-based government and accountability. Strong
performance measures will form the criteria for measuring the
success of this initiative.
So I am optimistic that with these ideas, these new
partnerships, and the leadership of my colleagues here today,
and with you, as well, Mr. Chairman, we are poised to build the
stronger, more resilient, and sustainable communities Americans
want and need in the 21st century.
Thank you, and to Members of the Committee, I look forward
to answering your questions after my colleagues' testimony.
Chairman Dodd. Thank you very, very much. I am very excited
about your livability principles. It is well done, I say to all
of you.
We have been joined by Michael Bennet, as well, our
colleague from Colorado. Senator, thank you for being here this
morning, as well.
Secretary LaHood.
STATEMENT OF RAY LaHOOD, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Secretary LaHood. Chairman Dodd and Members of the
Committee, I think the story today is that your leadership has
brought us together and we are grateful to you. I think the
other story is that cabinet secretaries can be team players,
and we take our initiative for that from President Obama, who
when he asked us to serve in the cabinet asked us to be team
players.
So Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to discuss
the Department of Transportation's plans to develop and
implement a Livable Communities Initiative that will measurably
enhance the quality of life for families, workers, and
communities across America. I want to thank you, Chairman Dodd,
for your leadership in placing this important issue on the
national agenda and gathering all of us here today to answer
your questions.
As I said during my confirmation hearing back in January,
we must invest in transportation projects that preserve and
enhance the unique characteristics of each urban, suburban, and
rural neighborhood. To that end, I am committed to ensuring
that our transportation policies help unite and strengthen
communities. Livable communities, by definition, offer
residents choices among different modes of travel, from highway
to light rail to bike paths. Public transit connects housing,
employment, and recreational opportunities wherever possible.
And plans for growth and development take energy efficiency and
lower emissions into account at every step. Today, I will
describe how we plan to begin to achieve these goals.
As you know, DOT has been collaborating with Secretary
Donovan at HUD on concrete ways to encourage communities and
developers to integrate housing and transportation planning and
related investments, and I am pleased to announce that
Administrator Lisa Jackson of the Environmental Protection
Agency has agreed to join our Sustainable Community
Partnership. I particularly want to thank the Committee for its
role in encouraging us to join forces and you, Mr. Chairman,
for encouraging us to work together.
The three-way partnership will have an enormous effect in
enabling the Federal Government to coordinate and direct
Federal investments in water infrastructure, better air
quality, housing, and transportation. This is a new direction
for the DOT and our partners and we are grateful to President
Obama and his senior advisors on the environment, domestic and
urban policy for supporting this important effort.
I am very confident that our agreement to align policies
and programs across our three departments, which have
traditionally been stovepiped, is a very positive and important
step forward toward making our livable community concept a
reality. We simply cannot continue business as usual.
Fresh water is a scarce commodity in many fast-growing
communities in the West and Southwest. Air quality remains poor
in many large urban areas. And many of our highways, airports,
and freight railways are far too congested to operate as they
should. We need fresh ideas to address these challenges. We
need to think holistically because history has shown that a
piecemeal approach does not work over the long term. If we are
truly serious about combating climate change, encouraging
Americans to walk more and drive less, and conserving natural
resources through more efficient land use, then we must take
this cross-cutting approach.
Within the last few weeks, our partnership has identified
an ambitious set of principles that will define our efforts in
the coming months as we articulate policies, programs, and
grants that States and communities can tap into. Our principles
include: Providing more transportation choices; expanding
access to affordable housing, particularly housing located
close to transit; enhancing economic competitiveness in terms
of giving people access to jobs, education, and services, as
well as giving businesses access to markets; targeting Federal
funds toward existing communities to spur revitalization and
protect rural landscapes; increasing collaboration among
Federal, State, and local governments in order to better target
investments, and improve accountability; and valuing the unique
qualities of all communities, whether urban, suburban, or
rural.
Secretary Donovan, Administrator Jackson, and I stand ready
to work with Congress to ensure that these principles are
embedded in forthcoming legislation and regulations that govern
our programs. This certainly includes the next surface
transportation authorization bill, which we want to make sure
is compatible with our livability agenda. This is a big task,
but I am confident we will succeed.
Thanks to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and
thank you for those who voted for it, momentum is already
building. The Recovery Act's $1.5 billion discretionary TIGER
Grant Program will soon begin funding multi-modal
transportation projects that promote greater mobility and
sustainability. We know we are going to receive many, many
creative proposals that will help transform the transportation
landscape in urban and rural areas around the country.
The commitments I have described here today, along with
other efforts such as new and revitalized inner-city passenger
rail service, illustrate President Obama's unprecedented
commitment to making transportation work more effectively and
efficiently for all Americans. It is a promise I look forward
to keeping alongside with my colleagues.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Dodd. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. We thank
you for those comments, as well, and can't begin to tell you
how excited we are that you have taken over the helm of the
Department of Transportation and your commitment to these
issues, so we are very grateful to you.
You know, these are big issues and it is time we took on
some big issues in the country. The small bore politics that
went on too long, I think is hopefully over with. And so this
is the kind of debate we ought to be having and reshaping this
debate in a way, so I thank you for that.
We are going to turn to Senator Bennet. Senator Merkley was
here, but he had to step out. Senator Bennet? Excuse me, I
apologize. Lisa, I apologize. I am jumping to my colleagues
instead of getting you, Lisa. I apologize. Lisa Jackson, thank
you.
Senator Bennet. I know how late the Chairman was up last
night.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Dodd. We arrived together about one in the
morning.
STATEMENT OF LISA P. JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. Jackson. Oh, my goodness. Well, good morning, Mr.
Chairman, and thank you for the opportunity to be here. It is
an unusual venue for me, so I can certainly understand why you
are not used to seeing EPA here, but we are happy to be here
this morning. And to Members of the Committee, good morning.
I am absolutely delighted to be here this morning with two
of the most extraordinary members of President Obama's green
cabinet, my colleagues Secretary Ray LaHood and Secretary Shaun
Donovan, to discuss our agency's work on sustainable
development. Mr. Chairman, I salute you for your longtime
interest and work on these issues and I am so happy we are here
to discuss them today.
We are happy to announce that EPA has entered into the
Partnership for Sustainable Communities, and I thank
Secretaries Donovan and LaHood for their leadership on this
issue. EPA has been working for years on issues of smart growth
and this partnership represents a real leap forward for not
only our agencies, but for the American people.
The partnership recognizes that the work of our agencies is
connected in designing or improving our communities to be
sustainable for the long term. Mobility, housing, and
environmental issues are entirely interconnected. Where you
live affects how you get around, and how you get around affects
where you live. Both decisions affect our environment. We
cannot reduce greenhouse gas emissions without a development
strategy that reduces vehicle miles traveled, and we cannot
provide affordable housing without taking into account what
residents there must pay for their transportation, for their
energy, and for their water.
This partnership will help advance each of our missions.
Working across agencies gives us an opportunity to share
knowledge, resources, strategies, and coordinate planning in
ways that will improve health and the environment, cut costs
and harmful emissions from transportation, and build more
affordable homes in communities all over the country.
Through it, our agencies will work together to help make
sure our Nation's policies embrace well-designed, energy-
efficient, water-efficient, affordable housing, a
transportation system with more options for reaching jobs,
schools, parks, medical care, and other basic needs, and
waterways that are clean and safe for drinking, swimming, and
fishing, air that is safe to breathe and land that is free of
toxic contamination. We have created a framework that will
guide the cooperative development of policies, regulations,
spending priorities, and legislative proposals that emphasize
environmental, economic, cultural, and social sustainability.
Collective implementation of those policies at the State,
local, and Tribal levels will ensure that we accommodate our
Nation's anticipated growth in smarter, more sustainable ways.
Vibrant and prosperous towns and cities will attract the
residents and business investment needed for robust growth.
When growth flows naturally to these places, it makes it easier
to protect environmental resources, such as forests and
wetlands, and helps preserve wildlife, farms, rural landscapes,
and scenic beauty.
Smart growth principles are equally important in urban,
suburban, and rural areas. A few weeks ago, I visited Wyoming,
where EPA's Smart Growth Program--and I have to take a second
to acknowledge John Frece's leadership--is helping Governor
Dave Freudenthal address the effects of the State's energy
development on its environmental resources. In one of the least
densely populated States in the Nation, residents often found
themselves in heavy commuter traffic. The jobs weren't in the
same places where the employees could afford to live. Smart
growth approaches to these kinds of impacts are just as
relevant in small town rural America as they are to different
sets of challenges in New York, New Haven, Birmingham, or
Houston.
At EPA, our focus will be on encouraging smart growth
approaches to protect human health and the environment. This
includes using smart growth as a tool to combat climate change.
Combined, buildings and transportation contribute 63 percent of
our Nation's greenhouse gas emissions. Smarter growth, combined
with green building techniques, can take a significant chunk
out of that number.
Transportation uses 70 percent of the oil consumed in this
country, and on average, roughly 20 percent of U.S.
CO2 emissions come from passenger vehicles. More
efficient vehicles and cleaner fuel simply will not be enough
to meet our greenhouse gas reduction and energy independence
goals. Reducing the number of miles we drive must also be part
of the solution.
There is no need to wait for some technological
breakthrough to reduce the amount of driving we do. The
strategies to help people drive less exist today and one of
them is smart growth. We know that investing in public
transportation, making communities more walkable, and creating
more housing near job centers result in less driving. It is
also critical to build on the progress in air quality we have
seen since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1990. And smart
growth can help us get there, too.
As we move forward, the continued integration of air
quality, land-use, and transportation planning will be
important. EPA helps State and local agencies calculate
emissions benefits for many of the strategies that support
sustainable communities--better transit, increased carpooling,
and other travel options. These resources can help communities
meet Clean Air Act air quality requirements and build better,
more livable communities.
And we are seeing real results across the country. Atlantic
Station is a 138-acre redevelopment project in Atlanta,
Georgia. Through a public-private partnership involving the
State of Georgia, the city of Atlanta, the Atlanta Regional
Commission, Jacoby Development, Incorporated, and the EPA, the
former Atlantic Steel Mill site was reclaimed and redesigned to
help residents and workers significantly reduce the amount they
need to drive.
One of the largest brownfield redevelopments in the U.S.,
this national model for smart growth includes six million
square feet of LEED-certified office space, two million square
feet of retail and entertainment space, 1,000 hotel rooms, and
it will have between 3,000 and 5,000 residential units upon
full build-out. A shuttle system that carries one million
people a year circulates between a commuter rail stop and
Atlantic Station. Space is reserved for light rail service in
anticipation of future transit investments. Residents of
Atlantic Station drive an average of less than 14 miles per
day, compared to 32 miles a day for the average Atlantan.
Atlantic Station has also helped improve water quality.
Because it is compact, Atlantic Station uses much less land
than a conventional development for the same amount of housing
and commercial space. This efficient land use reduces annual
stormwater runoff by almost 20 million cubic feet a year.
Assuring that all have access to clean drinking water, that we
improve water quality in our communities, and that we build
wastewater treatment and stormwater systems is vital to our
health.
EPA is also poised to significantly increase its funding
for wastewater infrastructure through the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund. This will help communities meet the challenges
of upgrading aging wastewater and stormwater infrastructure. As
part of our partnership with DOD and HUD, EPA will encourage
States to direct additional funds to cost-effective,
environmentally preferable approaches to infrastructure in the
planning, design, repair, replacement, and management that also
promote sustainable communities, and EPA will provide guidance
and technical assistance to States.
In addition to improving water quality, our SRF fund can
support expanded housing choices. In my State of New Jersey, we
have shown how Federal funding can be used in both rural and
urban areas to help communities get the type of environmentally
sound development they want. The State provides lower-interest
loans for water infrastructure projects that serve mixed-use
developments and provide residents with transportation choices,
such as transit villages.
Importantly, our new partnership with HUD and DOT will help
us revitalize neighborhoods that have suffered from decades of
disinvestment. Redevelopment of such sites is difficult.
Because such sites are usually served by infrastructure and
transportation, they represent development opportunities that
are critical to transforming years of disinvestment into a
future of prosperity.
Healthy communities are not only environmentally healthy,
they are socially and economically strong. They offer
employment and education, safe and affordable homes, and access
to recreation, health care, and the needs of daily life. These
kinds of neighborhoods exist all over the country and market
demand for them is strong. In fact, the strong market has
driven up costs in smart growth areas, too often putting them
off limits to lower-income residents.
EPA is working with our partners to create environmentally
responsible affordable housing in these neighborhoods.
Coordinating with State housing officials and the Regional
Council of Governments, EPA's Smart Growth Program recently
helped four communities in the Hartford, Connecticut area use
State affordable housing funds to create mixed-income, mixed-
use, green compact developments with a range of transportation
options. As partners, we will help communities make sure that
publicly financed housing is attractive, safe, and convenient.
In conclusion, thank you so much for the opportunity to
appear here today. Working together, this is a great
opportunity to achieve economic and environmental goals that
our President has outlined for our Nation. Thank you.
Chairman Dodd. Administrator Jackson, thank you very, very
much. Those are wonderful examples. I was talking about where
it is always good to hear about projects actually working and
doing exactly what we are talking about, so demonstrating this
is very achievable, that these are not just ideas that have now
been demonstrated in some communities across the country.
Let me start, if I can, and I will keep an eye on the clock
here, and since we don't have an overflow crowd of Members here
this morning, we will do it sort of more informally. We have
been joined by Sherrod Brown, Senator Brown of Ohio. Thank you,
Senator, for being with us. So I will keep an eye on the clock
here, as well.
As I mentioned in my opening comments, we are working on
some legislation on the Banking Committee to try and come up
with some resources to help to encourage better coordinated
planning in our communities, and basically that. There may some
in some communities do a little bit more on the planning, but
certainly the idea is to get some resource base, because that
is a challenge. Obviously, States and localities are facing
tremendous pressures on budgets today and just trying to meet
current demands on everything from education and health issues
and so forth and the like.
So at this juncture, it is hard, and obviously we have got
our own constraints here, as well. But if we all recognize the
value of having better planning and coordination, then it may
be worthwhile for us to step up.
Senator Warner made the point earlier, when he was a
Governor looking at the Federal perspective from his chair as
Governor, whether or not there was any kind of coordinated
effort that he could count on as a Governor, and I presume
mayors and others ask the same questions around the country.
Are we going to do this, and how can we be a partner in this?
What is our role in all of this, respecting obviously
localities want to have that determination themselves as to
what works best for them and don't want us in Washington
dictating to them in ways that make it impossible for them to
achieve the results as they see them.
But I think they agree, as we are seeing in my State of
Connecticut, more and more communities, for instance, on
affordable housing are setting aside lands now so that they are
available to attract people, working families to be able to
live in these communities. So it is not limited to those who
can just afford the higher cost of housing and driving people
away at times when they need that workforce in their own
communities. So there is, I think, a desire across the country
for much of what we are talking about today.
But I wonder if you might share with us just quickly, all
three of you, what are some of these obstacles we are facing in
a way? The budget issue is obviously the obvious one to some
degree. But beyond that, what are the obstacles to coordinated
planning at the local and regional level and what can we do to
encourage regional integrated planning?
I think, Administrator Jackson, you talked about citing
examples of things that are working. For communities that
haven't yet tried it, they want to know if there are examples
out there around the country where this has actually worked and
people are benefiting from it.
Secretary Donovan, do you want to start?
Secretary Donovan. I would love to. I couldn't agree more
that in addition to the need for resources to support this
planning, which is along the lines that you are talking about
in the legislation, very consistent with what we are proposing
in our Sustainable Communities Initiative for our budget, part
of the problem here, frankly, is right now, the Federal
Government is in the way. We are holding up local efforts to
try to do this integrated planning. So this is exactly as you
say. This isn't about forcing localities to do something they
don't want to do. This is very much about getting out of their
way in addition to providing resources to help them do it.
One example I would give of that that we have already
started to work on with Secretary LaHood and his team, right
now, we require through HUD programs a 5-year consolidated plan
to be submitted to HUD to get access to many of our block grant
programs and other funding programs. At the same time, the
Department of Transportation is requiring metropolitan planning
organizations and others to do long-range transportation plans.
And yet, just as you have talked about the stovepipes that
exist, we don't have any integration between those plans. So if
a local area wants to do a single comprehensive plan, it is
much too complicated for them to meet both of our needs for
those different plans. So we can help them lower costs for
these planning efforts by bringing together the requirements
and help to get the kind of coordination that we want. That is
one example.
A second thing I would say more specific to HUD is we have
many--some of them, I would say, well-intentioned but
problematic requirements in our programs, things like
environmental requirements that make it hard, as Administrator
Jackson talked about, for urban areas to redevelop brownfield
sites, which are the most cost-effective in terms of access to
transit and other things. But whether it is not having risk-
based state-of-the-art environmental requirements in our
programs, that is an example.
Another one would be we support multi-family development,
rental buildings, across the country, but we have limits on how
much commercial income can support those mortgages because we
do residential housing. Well, that gets in the way of the kind
of mixed-use development that we want to support in urban
areas.
So there is a range of barriers like that that are critical
for us to start to address in our programs and that is exactly
what we have begun to do through this partnership.
The last thing I would say is that better information will
help markets respond to exactly these kind of things. People
are voting with their feet. If you look at what has happened in
the foreclosure crisis, the biggest drops in prices have been
in the least sustainable places, places that don't have access
to transportation, things that we have talked about here today.
But right now, the market can't price in those factors. If
I am a lender and I want to make a mortgage to somebody, if
they are going to spend in one house 10 percent of their income
on transportation and in a different house 30 percent of their
income on transportation, the first house is going to be a
safer investment for me. But as a lender, I don't have the
information I need to be able to provide better terms or to
respond to the safety that is a market-based solution that can
help to support more sustainable development. By developing an
Affordability Index, as I talked about in our testimony, we can
help to drive the market in directions that respond to exactly
the kind of things that we are talking about.
Chairman Dodd. I am very excited about the Affordability
Index.
I mentioned to some of you, I was in Chicago yesterday and
met with some people on transportation issues, and one
individual particularly is doing--I think I mentioned this to
you, Ray--he is doing mapping, transportation mapping, an
overlay. An awful lot of people are looking at where to locate,
where to buy. Obviously, the value of the homes, what they can
afford.
Usually the second question is, of course, what are the
schools like? And you can get surveys. Most States do surveys
now and will tell you what communities are providing higher
levels or better quality of education, and that is a major
driving factor. I have communities in my State that people
literally will beg, borrow, and steal to afford a home in that
community exclusively because the quality of the public schools
is so good. So that is a factor.
What we don't have is the overlay on transportation, the
second-largest cost. It is the cost of the home and the cost of
transportation. And so the ability to then be able to lay over
that and say, here is what your transportation costs are going
to be, I think you are going to--first of all, it is an
incentive at the local level to be able to provide those
alternative transportation means so that people can calculate
that and may have a major impact on that decision making
process, much as the school quality is, as well.
So I think it is a terrific concept and idea and one that
we need to develop in the Committee, as well.
Ray, what are your thoughts on that?
Secretary LaHood. I think your Committee could do a good
service by reforming the Metropolitan Planning Organizations.
The most common complaint I hear from mayors is that the
Metropolitan Planning Organizations don't really fit their
opportunity to really coordinate a lot of different activities.
It is a system that worked in the past, but I would encourage
you and your staff to work with the Conference of Mayors. They
have some very good ideas about getting these Metropolitan
Planning Organizations to encompass much more of the
metropolitan area--not just the cities, but the suburban areas
and the rural areas--to incorporate some of the planning that
needs to be done.
I think the other thing that we are trying to do, and where
you can be helpful in your legislation, is to create a Livable
Communities Program. The Program incorporates a lot of the
coordination that we are trying to effect, and really develop
it with our cooperation, so that we send a message to America
that this is not just some concept, but that it is doable and
it is doable because all of the different components of the
Federal Government are willing to work together to do it.
And I think the third thing from our point of view is on
New Starts and the availability of funding for transit for
rural areas and light rail. There is the opportunity for
different kinds of availability of our New Starts money for
transit, whether it be for buses or vans to go out to rural
areas to deliver people to a doctor's appointment and so forth.
Some of those things exist, but we want to work with you on
really getting the reforms that allow some of our opportunities
to become a part of the Livable Communities Program that we
want to work with you on.
Chairman Dodd. A great concept.
Administrator Jackson, you talked about this already, but
any additional thoughts on the----
Ms. Jackson. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman. I think your
question implies part of the answer, this is--and Secretary
Donovan said it, as well--this has to be from the bottom up.
The intent and the desire on the part of communities is out
there. Communities have a vision for what they would like their
future to be.
I think the Federal Government's role is in providing
technical assistance, that success stories like we passed on
that help them refine their vision, and then tools that help
them implement the kind of code changes or zoning changes to
actually effectuate those visions, because I think oftentimes
communities feel a bit at a loss and then they feel as though
they are fighting the Federal Government who inadvertently--if
they are not helping them, they are surely--if they are not
hurting them, they are surely not helping them. So I think we
are here today to say we intend to make sure we are working not
at cross purposes but reinforcing each other.
Chairman Dodd. I mentioned these transportation costs and
these mapping ideas. I presume either Secretary Donovan or
Secretary LaHood will correct me on these if I am wrong. I am
told that the average household spends roughly 20 percent of
its budget on transportation, the average household in the
country. Low-income households spend, on average, 55 percent of
their disposable income on transportation. And we also know
that once a transit line is proposed in an area, the value--
contrary to what I think people historically believe to be the
case, the old notion of what side of the railroad tracks did
you live on, and the old assumption was that if you are on the
wrong side of the tracks, the value of your home, the economic
conditions were less.
Today, that is just the opposite. In fact, there are many
communities now we know--and we can calibrate exactly--home
values probably have gone up because, in fact, there has been a
light rail line available. So we are watching values go up at
the very time we are trying to promote affordable housing. And
if we are looking at 55 percent of that disposable income of
poor families is going to transportation, or 20 percent of the
average family, do you have any quick answers on how we address
this notion here of trying to make sure that there is going to
be that affordable housing for people who are seeing such a
large percentage of their income be consumed by transportation?
Any quick comments on that?
Secretary Donovan. Absolutely. I think you have hit on
exactly the key issue here, which is what we have seen, the
experience has been where you create transit-oriented
development, you actually, by coordinated efforts of local,
State, and Federal Governments to make investments in
transportation, you create enormous real estate value, as well.
And there is a great opportunity to use techniques like
inclusionary zoning to capture some of that value right up
front in the zoning code to create diverse housing options that
include low-income workforce housing or moderate-income, as
well as market-rate housing, which as we have learned over the
last few decades in housing costs, is exactly the most
sustainable kind of community from a housing point of view.
But you can do that with relatively little cost in terms of
traditional subsidy mechanisms because the value that you are
creating in the real estate with greater density, with the
access to transit there, gives you the opportunity to capture
some of that value and to build it in.
My own experience as a local housing official, that is
exactly what we did, and we are very successful in creating
those at a relatively low cost to government in terms of the
subsidies that we had to provide.
What I would add, though, is that one of the things that I
saw--again, as a local housing official--is that many people
around the country are interested in inclusionary zoning but
don't have the skills or expertise to do the economic modeling,
to understand how to get the details right at a local level,
and this is one of the things with the $40 million that we
proposed in our Sustainable Communities Initiative is exactly
the kind of effort that we could support in terms of technical
assistance and help to localities to say, look, it has been
successful in these other communities. Here is how the models
have worked. We can get you information and help that will
allow you to establish local zoning codes that will actually
work in this direction. So that is one example of the kind of
thing that we could do.
Chairman Dodd. I will turn to Senator Tester, but Secretary
LaHood or Administrator Jackson, any quick comment on that?
Secretary LaHood. I was in Houston recently, and from
downtown took a light rail out to their medical center, where
M.D. Anderson, the children's hospital, and the women's
hospital are located. All along the way, they took housing that
was dilapidated and now you see condominiums and other kinds of
housing developing. So people who could not afford an
automobile to get to their doctor or their hospital could take
a light rail line, and as the rail line was developed and
built, housing began to develop along with it.
It is, if you build it, people will come. And when you do
that, you don't have to have three automobiles. You may have to
have one, but you can get on the light rail at the condominium
and take it either to a medical center or you can go to
downtown Houston. It works.
Chairman Dodd. Administrator Jackson, anything?
Ms. Jackson. Only quickly to emphasize the point you made,
Mr. Chairman, which is in doing redevelopment, we also, I think
as a Federal Government, need to be very mindful of not pricing
those who most need that housing out of the market. Certainly
people with money want to live in the most convenient places,
and when schools are there, young families will come. But we
have to be careful in redevelopment, and I think there are some
tremendous opportunities for EPA to work on redevelopment
clean-up issues that ensure that we replace mixed-income
communities with new mixed-income communities, because
otherwise I think we have a fundamental issue of fairness.
Chairman Dodd. Thank you very, very much.
Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
One of my pet peeves as a farmer is the fact that we tend
to build houses on the best farmland that we have, not marginal
stuff, the absolute best stuff. And the redevelopment issue is
an issue that I think can help stave off part of that.
I guess my question as it applies, going around this
country and seeing--and I think it applies everywhere, by the
way, but seeing large groups of people where if you want to
look at bang for the buck redevelopment in a city like
Cincinnati, maybe, better than a city like Bozeman, but the
question is, how are you going to determine how the funds for
redevelopment are allocated? Just kind of give me some sort of
idea on what your vision for that is.
Secretary Donovan. The current proposal that we have for
the Sustainable Communities Initiative is that we have a
competitive process to start with. The idea here would be to
pick a relatively small number of places, including urban and
metropolitan communities as well as rural communities that have
already begun some of these efforts, that are interested, as
you heard Administrator Jackson talk about, efforts in Wyoming
and elsewhere that have already started. So we would be looking
through competition to allocate initially those funds.
But the idea is in the longer term--I talked earlier about
what we do with our consolidated plans right now and our long-
term transportation plans, that those aren't integrated. We can
learn from these early competitions and integrate the best
ideas into all of our block grant and other programs that we
have. So that would be an initial effort.
I would say also that I do think you make a very good point
about farmland. Right now, 50 percent of all the people in the
country that live in rural areas live within parts of
metropolitan areas and the pressure on that farmland is
enormous. And things like I talked about earlier, with the way
that we finance multi-family developments, rental developments,
we have a bias toward greenfield development in our programs
because of the many restrictions that we place on it, whether
it be commercial income, whether it be the cost limits that we
set in those.
There are many things that we do, many of them unwittingly,
to push development into the kinds of rural areas that you are
talking about, as well as policies that hurt the small towns in
rural areas that have lost retail businesses where the second
floors--I was talking to Tom Vilsack about this on a recent
trip--the second floors of many of those towns are empty
because we don't have good housing options, whether it be for
seniors in those towns or others that could be used to keep
those small towns vital.
So I think there is a range of things that we would hope to
demonstrate with these early competitions and sustainable
communities that show how this is applicable in rural areas.
Senator Tester. That is good.
Secretary LaHood, you talked about transportation options,
and I agree that it makes the livability index go up when you
do. Are there modes of transportation that you feel we get a
better bang for the buck initially by spending money on it, or
what is your perspective on that? What I am talking about is--
and I suppose it varies from region to region, but light rail
or putting more money into highways or bike paths or walking
paths. Where are we somewhat focused? Or maybe we are not.
Secretary LaHood. Our focus is going to be to work with
these two extraordinary cabinet members and to do what I think
Americans want us to do now, to do what has been done in
Portland, Oregon, to do what has been done in some other
communities, where you don't have to own three automobiles. If
you want to bike to work, walk to work, take a bus to work,
take a light rail to work, take a streetcar to work--offer
people some options and some opportunities--and you can do this
in neighborhoods like in Chicago.
Obviously, you can't do it in all of Chicago, but you can
carve out neighborhoods--and I have talked to the mayor about
this--and create green neighborhoods that allow people to use
lots of different forms of transportation. That is how you can
really get a bang for your buck, and that is the direction that
I think we want to go.
Because I know that you represent a large rural State, I
want to say this. We have some good rural transportation
programs, and we want to work with you all to really expand on
that, that allow for transit districts, maybe not a bus, but
maybe a van to go out to a community, deliver somebody to a
doctor's appointment, a grocery store. People that have lived
in these small communities all their lives, they want to stay
there and there are funds available through USDA, the Rural
Development, for housing so people can stay in their
communities. We have funds available that allow for rural
transit to deliver people back and forth. So if they can't
drive a car or don't own a car, can't afford a car, they don't
necessarily need a car.
Senator Tester. Right.
Secretary LaHood. And they can still live in these rural
communities. But I think that, again, is a very good bang for
the buck and provides good transportation to people.
Senator Tester. I appreciate that, Secretary LaHood. I also
would say, as long as we are not thinking of stovepipes or
silos anymore, when it comes to rural communities, there is a
lot of opportunity, not only for your transportation system,
but to partner up with the VA, IHS, senior groups, all those
things, because there are some buses running around and it
seems like there is not enough money to fund any of them well.
Secretary LaHood. Yes.
Senator Tester. But if you could team up----
Secretary LaHood. Right.
Senator Tester. Administrator Jackson, I guess my question
revolves around the challenges that the EPA would have in being
a part of this, because it seems as though housing is housing,
transportation is transportation, and they are very complicated
in and of themselves. But if you have a situation where you
have a water issue with pollution or whatever, or an air issue,
as far as that goes, how do you dovetail into this so it all
happens in a timely fashion?
Ms. Jackson. Well, we will embrace the opportunity to do
so, Senator, and I think we have long had an Office of Smart
Growth that for us is very much about breaking down the silos,
even within the environmental protection field, and realizing
that something that I think most people know intuitively. The
absolute best strategy for protecting farms and forests and
wetlands and the places that are valuable ecologically and
economically is to have strong towns and cities and hamlets
where people can locate and live in the vicinity of the land
they work, respecting private property values, as well.
So it actually--we do a lot of regulation at EPA and it is
very important regulation and I often appear before other
committees to defend the work we are doing. But one of the
things I hope people leave here with is that we also understand
that if we build strong towns, people can live there with
adequate transportation and still have the rural quality of
life that they want. I do not see them at all as incompatible.
In fact, this is music to our ears at EPA.
Senator Tester. Good. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Dodd. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I
appreciate the comments the panel has made.
I wanted to explore a little more, Secretary Donovan, the
Affordability Index. How do you see energy issues being
incorporated into that structure?
Secretary Donovan. I think there are two ways that it
factors in, one directly, and one more indirectly. First of
all, we don't have today, as I said in my testimony, a simple
way for a consumer who is looking to buy a home or to rent a
home to understand what their energy costs are going to be. So
very specifically--and we have begun work with Secretary Chu on
this, as well--to get to a more transparent, simple
Affordability Index that includes what will you pay for utility
costs. And what that would allow you to do is to have a market
for energy efficient mortgages that actually works, that
functions effectively.
And ultimately what that does is to translate the savings
that you can achieve through improvements, whether it be
retrofits or in new construction to lower energy costs, allows
you to price that in right up front and to get a benefit in
that with a higher mortgage that will eliminate the up-front
costs of putting in those improvements.
So the kind of information and affordability index that we
are talking about will help very directly to help consumers
understand what they are buying, to understand what their costs
are, and to begin to price those into financial markets in a
way, I think, that could be extremely powerful in helping to
develop the kind of energy efficiency that we are talking
about.
As an indirect measure, however, the location efficiency
that we are talking about, as well, goes directly to energy
use, as well, because as Administrator Jackson talked about, by
reducing vehicle miles traveled, we also help to cut greenhouse
gases. So by having an Affordability Index that includes
transportation costs, the lower the transportation costs, in
general, the lower the carbon emissions will be, as well.
So in both of those ways, energy efficiency and location
efficiency, the Affordability Index could be a big help.
Senator Merkley. Do you see this as something that would be
required with each house sale? Would it be on a voluntary
basis? Would it be new homes only required, voluntary for
others? Kind of how do you see it being rolled out?
Secretary Donovan. We are looking at those options right
now, and in fact, one of the things that we found, there are
lots of localities that are already doing innovative things
around this. I think initially, as we understand what the costs
might be, I think there are lots of options that we have for
doing it on a voluntary basis or working with localities that
already have programs in place. We want to make sure before we
go to any sort of requirement that there is an efficient and
effective way to do this so that we don't add significant costs
to the cost of buying a home up front.
Senator Merkley. I just wanted to mention to you that one
of the issues that I am working on is a low-cost lending
facility that would enable homeowners, regardless of whether
they are selling, to basically overcome the up-front costs of,
if you will, the more energy efficient windows, et cetera, and
then see that reflected back on their electric bills or perhaps
on their property tax bills, depending on the partnership, and
kind of a way to overcome that sticker shock on the front end,
because if the savings are more than the payments on the loan,
it doesn't cost you anything up front. So I am trying just to
put it out.
Secretary Donovan. I couldn't agree more, and that is why I
think in the long run, if we develop a mortgage market that can
pay for that, we don't need to subsidize it. It can be done
just by the market itself. In the shorter run, there are both
efforts with utility companies and on property taxes that we
are looking at in many localities. We also are proposing a $100
million Energy Innovation Fund in our budget proposal that
would be used to support exactly those kind of financial
innovations that you are talking about.
Senator Merkley. Great. Great.
Secretary LaHood, thank you very much. When you were here
for the nomination process, I was asking you to take a look at
the streetcars and the obstacles on the New Starts and you did
so and you cut the red tape in a spectacular way, so thank you
very much for bringing common sense to that issue.
The issue I wanted to ask you about is in terms of it still
seems easier to get funding for a lane of highway than it is
for a rail line. A lot of what we have experienced in many
places is you add a lane of freeway and a mile of freeway will
only accommodate, when it comes to congestion, 100-plus cars
being parked, which fill it up very fast if you haven't
addressed every other point of congestion within the system. So
we have this misleading sense that if you go from two lanes to
three lanes, you increase the capacity by a third. If often
doesn't happen, while rail pulls a lot of people off. Plus, we
have the induced demand problem.
Are there other things we can do to kind of help shift kind
of--get the greatest bang for the buck in terms of how we
invest in these different modes of getting people from home to
work?
Secretary LaHood. I think this hearing today highlights the
idea that we need to have alternatives for people. Everybody, I
think, gets it, as far as automobiles go, that we are not going
to eliminate automobiles, but we need alternatives so that
people have access to transit, whether that be a bus or light
rail, or people have the ability, as I said, to walk or bike,
or to take streetcars. That is the direction that we really
believe is the wave of the future, and obviously you all--
certainly the Chairman feels that way and I think many of you
do, also. We are in sync with you on that. We need to put some
resources in that.
And we also need to make sure that our New Starts program
doesn't take forever to get funded in order to accomplish our
goals of creating some light rail or more transit, more buses,
more options for people, and we are working on that. I assure
you that we are going to really streamline it so that, while we
are not going to cut corners, it shouldn't take 10 years to get
these kind of systems up and running in communities. I assure
you it won't take 10 years under our Department because we have
people now that realize that we can reduce the time that it
takes to get these approvals.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. I
wanted to mention that Oregon Ironworks just got a contract to
provide streetcars to Tucson and we are hoping that other
cities will be following. I also understand, I had invited you
to come to Oregon and ride the streetcar, and I understand you
are coming in July. We don't know yet--my team is working with
your team. Hopefully, I will be able to join you and invite you
on the streetcar, but thank you for coming to Oregon.
Secretary LaHood. I look forward to that. Thank you.
Senator Merkley. I am out of time, Ms. Jackson, so I will
follow up in the future.
Ms. Jackson. It is good to see you.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
Chairman Dodd. Senator, if you want to take a few minutes,
please. Senator Merkley, if you want to take another couple of
minutes----
Senator Merkley. I just wanted to give you a chance to
expand on any of the pieces, as you are thinking about the
housing, as you are thinking about the transportation, of
creative ways that we can strengthen this partnership, things
that you would--the message you would like us to hear as we
work to assist in this effort.
Ms. Jackson. Just that EPA is thrilled to be here, to be
part of the partnership. We have had a long history of
advocating and supporting and supplying assistance on these
issues. We have a brownfields program which is all about
essentially land recycling.
I will leave you with one little thought that I think
communities know, but John said it to me and so I repeat it
everywhere I go, which is that if we want to know if a
community is healthy in the environmental world, we look for
indicator species that tell us whether or not a population of
whatever species is dying in a water system or not. And when
you want to know whether a community is healthy in terms of
smart growth, look for pedestrians. In fact, pedestrians is a
good indicator species for a healthy community. People feel
safe enough to walk. They have somewhere to go when they walk,
to the doctor or to a store. They have recreational
opportunities. They have transit opportunities. So we are all
about building a thriving community of pedestrians out there
along with HUD and DOT, and I think if we keep that in the
front of our minds, we will end up with some good policies.
Thank you.
Senator Merkley. Thank you. Thank you.
Chairman Dodd. Thank you, Senator, very, very much.
Senator Bennet.
Senator Bennet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this hearing and thank you for thinking about this
legislation.
I would like to thank the cabinet secretaries for being
here and leading by example and putting down your arms or your
stovepipes or whatever this is, because I think the more we get
into this, what we are going to discover is that a lot of well-
intentioned efforts at every level of government, from
municipal all the way up to the Federal level, have put us in a
place where we are not incentivizing the kind of behaviors we
are thinking that we want, and in many cases, the reverse is
true. We discovered that in Denver as we began to think much
more holistically about our planning process, our zoning and
housing rules.
I hope as we think about the legislation we put that in the
forefront of our minds, that we want to create a set of
incentives and disincentives that lead people to think broadly
about these issues across various sectors--transportation,
housing, environment, I would add education to that list, and
there are probably other things as well--and also to think
regionally in their approach.
You mentioned, Secretary LaHood, the Metropolitan Planning
Organizations. I couldn't agree with you more. I think we need
to think about how to give our local and regional organizations
more support in collaborating together.
And to that end, the only question I really have is for
you, which is how can we help you as you think about expediting
the Federal funding process for projects that clearly meet by
any measure sustainability and livability goals so we can get
some of these things out of the chute and people can begin in
communities that maybe aren't as ready as Senator Merkley is or
mine so that we can begin to get them on board?
Secretary LaHood. Well, Senator, first of all, you and I
have talked about this before, but you have one of the most
innovative mayors in Denver that I have ever met and he is
thinking outside the box all the time about all these issues,
whether it is education or housing or environment or
transportation. He and I have had a number of discussions, as
you and I have, and I want to commit to you that we are
figuring out ways to streamline the process, because I know you
have some important projects in your State and we are working
with the mayor and others to make sure that everything is done
correctly but that it doesn't take 10 years to get it done. We
are committed to doing that at the Department and some of these
things have just taken too long.
And so, really, it is up to us to streamline these things
and figure out ways to get the money out the door so we can get
people to work and get these important projects out to the
communities and we are committed to doing that.
Senator Bennet. Secretary Donovan.
Secretary Donovan. I was just going to add, to build on
something Secretary LaHood had said in his testimony, I do
think the reauthorization bill is an enormous opportunity for
us to do that. There are things that we can do with our rules
and our notices on a regulatory front without any changes in
Congress on the legislative authorities we have. But there are
certain things that will need legislative changes, as well.
So we have begun through our partnership a process of
literally going program by program to say, what are the
barriers and what will we need legislative changes on, and I
think the reauthorization bill is a perfect opportunity, not
just to put these principles into action and speed the process,
but also to help us get out of the way on a lot of these
barriers.
Senator Bennet. I hope you will let us know whatever it is
we can do to help you get out of the way, because there is a
lot of imagination out there, not the least of which is in my
mayor, but lots of other local officials, as well, and I think
if we have this opportunity to unleash that imagination and
unleash the creative potential that is there, we really can get
after some of these projects across the country and move past
the sort of theory of government that says we will all be dead
by the time we are done with this.
So I just want you to know from my perspective--I know
there are others here who feel the same way--whatever we can do
to help, you just need to let us know.
Thank you for your testimony today. We are very grateful.
Senator Tester [presiding]. Further questions? Senator
Merkley.
Senator Merkley. No.
Senator Tester. OK. I just want to thank you all for being
here today. I want to echo the comments that Senator Bennet
just said. If there are legislative things that we can do to
help facilitate your success in working together and creating
better communities, just let us know. Thank you very much for
being here.
We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:54 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Prepared statements and responses to written questions
supplied for the record follow:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CHRISTOPHER J. DODD
I'd like to thank you all for being here today. I hope you all had
a painless commute, but if you didn't, I understand. I'm from
Connecticut. And although we love our State, we know something about
rough commutes. Take I-95. Over the last 50 years, average daily
traffic in the Connecticut Southwest Corridor has increased more than
sevenfold.
Imagine you're on your way home from a hard day at the office. When
you get there, your kids will want dinner, but at the rate traffic is
moving, you're just hoping you can get there in time to make them
breakfast tomorrow.
For 20 minutes, 45 minutes, over an hour, you grit your teeth and
grip the wheel harder as traffic crawls slowly along the highway. The
air is clouded with exhaust from what seems like millions of cars
barely moving--at almost three bucks a gallon, by the way. And things
won't be any easier when you and your fellow motorists slowly grind
along the same road to work tomorrow morning.
Welcome to the daily commute for far too many residents of
Connecticut.
If you know me, you know how I feel about the importance of new
transit options. I've been a longtime advocate for the Tri-City
Corridor that will create new transit villages, get people off the
roads, and revitalize our regional economy. We will accomplish this by
initiating new commuter rail service and 110 mile-per-hour intercity
train service between New Haven and Springfield, Massachusetts, with
direct connections to New York City and, eventually, Boston. This
project is one of my top priorities and I am going to work with leaders
in my State and Secretary LaHood to get it done.
But our communities are growing and changing. And too often, our
approach to community development policy has been like one of those
cars on the Merritt Parkway--trapped in gridlock, never moving. It's
time to rethink the way we plan the futures of the places we live,
work, and raise our kids.
Between 1980 and 2000, the growth of the largest 99 metro areas in
the United States consumed 16 million acres of rural land--that's about
an acre for every new household. And with our population expected to
grow by over 150 million people between 2000 and 2050, this land-use
trend simply cannot continue.
Before today, Federal policy has often treated transportation,
housing, and environmental protection as separate issues. But that
system of stove-piping simply isn't working. And the consequences of
failing to address the way we plan our communities' growth are many.
We'll continue to lose our rural land and open spaces. We'll see a
worsening of the traffic congestion that has tripled over the past 25
years. We'll continue to pay more and more at the pump at a time when
our family budgets are already stretched to the max. We'll continue to
push lower-income families further away from job opportunities. We'll
continue to increase greenhouse gas emissions despite the urgent threat
of climate change.
In February, I wrote a letter to President Obama urging him to
establish a White House Office of Sustainable Development to coordinate
housing, transportation, energy, and environmental policies. The
President has been a strong leader on these issues, and he has already
shown a willingness to shake up a Federal Government that hasn't always
succeeded when it comes to addressing related issues in a
comprehensive, effective way.
Today, following up on my letter, we've invited three members of
the Cabinet who don't usually spend much time in the same hearing room.
They'll be outlining for us the administration's commitment to
sustainable development, a commitment that recognizes the importance of
working across traditional boundaries to create more cohesive,
collaborative policy.
One important piece of the work we have to do is to provide more
transportation choices for families.
Few States suffer from worse traffic congestion than Connecticut,
and the lack of good transit options costs families more than just
inconvenience. In large part due to congested roadways and the lack of
affordable housing and transit options, Connecticut ranks 49th in the
country in keeping our young people in State. Meanwhile, living in a
transit-rich neighborhood saves money--on average, as much as ten
percent of a family's budget. This is particularly important for those
living on fixed incomes or struggling to get by in a tough economy.
Improving transportation isn't just about making a daily commute
easier. It's about empowering people to access jobs and critical
services, and making things just a little bit easier for those on a
tight budget.
It's a problem that hurts not only quality of life for our
citizens, but opportunities for our businesses.
So we must improve and expand bus and rail service, providing new
choices for families who would no longer have to drive to work and
creating space on the road for those who do. And we need to build more
and better housing options near transit stations.
For instance, my State has developed a program called
HOMEConnecticut. It makes grants available for towns to plan Incentive
Housing Zones for higher-density, mixed-income housing in downtowns and
redeveloped brownfields, close to transit options and job centers.
It's a strategic investment in our economy, our environment, and
our quality of life. We've already begun to make progress in
Connecticut--and we can do more across the country.
This Committee is currently drafting legislation to provide
incentives for regions to plan future growth in a coordinated way that
reduces congestion, generates good-paying jobs, meets our environmental
and energy goals, protects rural areas and green space, revitalizes our
Main Streets and urban centers, creates and preserves affordable
housing, and makes our communities better places to live, work, and
raise families. Our bill will also create a competitive grant program
to provide resources to some of the projects identified in this
planning.
There's a lot we can do on this Committee, and I look forward to
continuing to work alongside Senator Shelby and our colleagues to get
it done--but we can't do it alone. Just like I've urged the
administration to do, I believe we in the Senate must work in a
coordinated and comprehensive fashion. In particular, this committee
will need to work closely with Senator Boxer's EPW Committee and
Senator Rockefeller's Commerce Committee as we write the next surface
transportation bill--legislation that I hope will eliminate stovepipes
within transportation policy, and ensure that it helps to advance broad
goals related to not just transportation, but community development,
economic growth, energy, and the environment.
Today, we will hear from witnesses who have already begun the
important collaborative effort within the administration, public
servants who are doing a tremendous job. This administration is today
making a significant and welcomed commitment to sustainable development
and livable communities, and I'm eager to discuss how we on this
Committee can be partners in helping our communities plan for a
prosperous future.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHERROD BROWN
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this important hearing.
I also would like to thank our witnesses, Secretary LaHood,
Secretary Donovan, and Administrator Jackson for joining us and for
their hard work on these issues.
As we sit in traffic longer, pay more for gas, and watch as scarce
farmland is developed, how we manage our cities' growth and expansion
must be both an economic and environmental priority.
I've been encouraged by the Administration's commitment to
promoting economic development and affordable housing options that
create greener, more sustainable communities.
I'm pleased to see that your agencies are working together on the
Sustainable Communities Initiative.
Cities across Ohio are already at the forefront of developing new
and innovative ways to make themselves more environmentally friendly,
energy efficient, accessible by public transit, and appealing for
people of all ages and income levels.
This sort of innovative thinking is particularly important in a
manufacturing State like Ohio that has been hard hit by the economic
downturn.
The strategic investments that cities like Cleveland, Akron, and
Springfield are making now in renewable energy, brownfield
redevelopment, and housing rehab will pay off in the future.
These projects will spur development and help create the good-
paying jobs in the high-tech and clean energy sector that will utilize
the ability of Ohio's skilled manufacturing workers.
These are jobs that will stay in the State rather than being
outsourced abroad. And today, my State needs these stable, good paying
jobs more than ever.
In the 1950 census, Cleveland had a population of nearly a million,
Cincinnati was over half a million, and 170,000 lived in Youngstown.
Fast forward 50 years and you can see how much things have changed:
Cleveland is now less than half its previous size, Cincinnati has lost
more than 150,000, and today fewer than 75,000 live in Youngstown.
Despite the population loss, these cities and others like them must
maintain an infrastructure for a population they haven't had in over 50
years.
It is important that the initiatives all of you are working on
utilize existing infrastructure--this means redeveloping neighborhoods
and downtowns, investing in public transit, promoting green
infrastructure, and ensuring affordable housing.
In Ohio, one of the most important revitalization projects being
discussed is resuming intercity passenger rail service between many of
our cities.
Rail in Ohio is essential to connecting the Midwest with the tens
of millions living on the eastern seaboard. Proposed corridors will
create jobs for Ohio's middle class workers, spur economic development
in our communities, reduce the number of cars on the road, and help us
achieve environmental goals that make our world more sustainable.
However, it will take more than just investing in passenger rail to
achieve the objective of an efficient, more comprehensive rail system.
That's why communities--like Columbus and Cincinnati--are looking to
expand surface transportation options through light rail and
streetcars.
The data on economic development tied to transit is clear and
cities in my State are ready to bring their citizens the transit
options they want.
Economic and environmental objectives need not be in conflict. Done
right, our economic and environmental policies can lead to both
sustained economic growth and a cleaner environment.
I look forward to hearing more about how we can capitalize on
comprehensive rail and transit strategies to achieve the twin goals of
more sustainable communities and job creation.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MICHAEL F. BENNET
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Shelby, thank you for holding this
hearing. I also want to thank Secretary Donovan, Secretary LaHood, and
Administrator Jackson for coming here today. We have heard a lot about
the need to change the way we do business in Washington, and the
collaboration between each of your agencies is evidence that we are
beginning to remove barriers to achieving smart policy solutions across
the country. Our success in supporting sustainable development is
critical to our economic security, our environment, and our health.
I am pleased to see the evidence of your collaborative thinking
about how we can support and incentivize localities to work together to
develop walkable, sustainable communities. I am particularly glad to
see that the EPA has joined this effort. For too long, environmental
sustainability has been an afterthought, rather than a guiding
principal for our development. Across the West, our limited water is
stretched between sprawling communities, and we need to do more to
encourage smart, thoughtful planning in all aspects of development.
However, as many of you have noted, there are substantial barriers
to this kind of integrated development. Our housing and transportation
agencies have not historically worked together, and it takes work to
break down silos. From what I've heard today, you are all committed to
doing that work. I look forward to seeing local communities reap the
benefits of that cooperation, and I am willing to support you however I
can along the way.
I am also concerned that successful development too often fails to
benefit long time residents of communities, who can no longer afford to
stay in their neighborhood once it improves. Our current system doesn't
do enough to reward innovative and creative ways to transform urban,
suburban, and rural communities into diverse, livable neighborhoods. I
hope that as we approach reauthorization of the transportation bill, we
can work to better incentivize this kind of growth, and I welcome your
input on how we can be successful on that front.
We do not need to convince people of the benefits of smart
development, as you have pointed out; the demand is far exceeding the
supply. I look forward to working with you to identify ways this
Committee can support this important work.
During my time in Denver, I was able to work with Mayor
Hickenlooper whose vision has helped transform many neighborhoods in
Denver to embody the kind of development we are hoping to support with
these sustainable development initiatives. The Denver Housing Authority
is working with the City of Denver on a transit oriented HOPE VI
project at South Lincoln homes. They are working to employ Smart Growth
Principles, Energy Efficiency and Sustainability and Multi-Modal
transportation planning. The project is located near a light rail stop.
The redevelopment of South Lincoln homes is taking a broad view of
sustainability, taking into account factors such as access to outdoor
activities for health, and new approaches to storm water management
that address water quality treatment and storage. This is the kind of
collaboration and development that we want to incentivize around the
country.
The Sustainable Communities Initiative is an important step in
towards facilitating planning. However, it is critical that we also
fund projects like the one at South Lincoln Homes, and make it easier
for localities like Denver to undertake such ambitious efforts.
Thank you for taking the time to come here today, and thank you for
your willingness to cooperate on these issues. I am encouraged by your
dedication, and I look forward to working with all of you to make our
communities even better places to live.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SHAUN DONOVAN
Secretary,
Department of Housing and Urban Development
June 16, 2009
Good morning, Chairman Dodd and Members of the Committee. It is a
pleasure to be here today to speak about the critical link between
housing, transportation and environmental policy. I want to thank you
and your Committee for your leadership in developing and pushing for
innovative and integrated approaches to these issues. And I want to
thank you for the opportunity to announce a landmark agreement between
the three agencies before your Committee today that includes six
``livability principles'' that will guide our work together.
I think it is crucially important that the Federal Government speak
with one voice on these issues, and these principles reflect that
conviction. They represent a powerful statement of common goals,
strategies, and purpose--not only for the three agencies you have here
today, but for communities across the country whose vitality in the
21st century depends on our ability to work together in partnership.
Earlier this year, I was pleased to testify before the House with
my colleague, Secretary Ray LaHood from the Department of
Transportation. I'm glad I have the opportunity to share the table with
him again today, because since that March testimony, we've taken
important steps to improve coordination between our departments.
I am especially pleased to have EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson join
us today as a partner in this effort--providing further evidence of our
commitment to collaboration and coordination across the entire Federal
Government.
It has been a remarkable several months, Mr. Chairman, since I
first appeared before you at my confirmation hearing. As I said at the
time, my number one job was to address the Nation's mortgage crisis. I
believe we have begun to get real results with the ambitious
foreclosure plan we've offered. Last week alone, 40,000 additional
modification offers were made to borrowers, bringing the total number
to over 190,000. But as I saw for myself when I traveled with the
Chairman to Connecticut several weeks back, there remains a great deal
more to be done. We still need the servicers to do their part in
helping to keep Americans in their homes to complete more modifications
and refinance more loans.
But more than ever, I am convinced that solutions to the myriad
challenges facing our housing markets must be addressed in a
comprehensive way, to reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil
and drive down energy costs for consumers and businesses alike.
This means that HUD, in collaboration with our partner agencies,
must find new, integrated solutions to the multi-dimensional challenges
faced by cities and suburbs, and rural areas. This new approach will
require collaboration across jurisdictional lines and enable
metropolitan leaders to ``join up'' housing, transportation, and other
policies to address the critical issues of affordability,
competitiveness, and sustainability.
Problem Statement
As I mentioned in my testimony before the House Appropriations
Committee, HUD's central mission--ensuring that every American has
access to decent, affordable housing--cannot be achieved in a vacuum.
For all our housing challenges today, I believe that goal can be
realized--but only in the broader context of housing, transportation,
and energy costs and choices that American families experience each day
in cities, suburbs and rural areas.
The average American household now spends 34 percent of their
annual budget on housing and 18 percent on transportation. More than
half of their budgets are wrapped up in these two expenses alone.
For low-income working families, the impact is particularly
severe--transportation constitutes almost a third of household income.
The extremes can be eye-opening--the average Houston-area household
spends over $11,000 per year on transportation. That means less money
for groceries, child care, doctor's visits. And in many metropolitan
areas, working families are spending more on transportation than on
housing.
The connection between transportation options and home values is
clear. As the recent housing downturn has shown, auto-dependent
houses--that is, homes that virtually require the resident to have
access to a car--are more vulnerable to price devaluation. Homes in
distant or remote neighborhoods showed a greater decline in value,
while some centrally located homes held or increased their value
compared to regional averages. For millions of Americans, these
declines can mean weakened retirement security, or inability to send
their children off to college.
In less-connected developments--for instance, many suburbs--while
housing costs may be lower, transportation costs are higher--and the
combination of housing and transportation costs now averages 57 percent
of income for working families in metropolitan areas.
The destructive effects of this mismatch between good housing
choices and good transportation choices are particularly acute in
metropolitan regions, which look very different from those that existed
in the mid-1960s, when HUD was created and much of our transportation
system was built. The populations of metropolitan areas and employment
opportunities available in them are now widely dispersed, with only 22
percent of the jobs in the top metropolitan areas located within 3
miles of the central business district. That can mean less time spent
with family and more time stuck in traffic.
These changes have made our work at HUD that much more challenging.
As decentralization has increased, the spatial mismatch between the
location of affordable housing and employment and educational
opportunities in metropolitan areas has worsened. Fewer low-wage
families can find housing near their work, as affordable housing is
often located in older urban and suburban areas. And businesses located
in those areas are dependent on workers who can commute--shrinking the
talent pool and incurring higher transportation and energy costs.
As my colleague from EPA will tell you, decentralization and sprawl
have a clear impact on the environment as well--through the loss of
wetlands and open space, and increased greenhouse gas emissions.
In recent years, we've made great progress in our understanding of
the sources behind carbon emissions. As the American people are well
aware, transportation accounts for a third of all greenhouse gas
emissions. But I think most people would be surprised to learn that
buildings account for almost 40 percent of our emissions--about half of
which is through our homes. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Department of Energy 2008 Building Energy Data Book--buildings
account for 38 percent of carbon emissions, residential buildings
account for 20 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to these trends, we have made a strong commitment to
energy efficient green building through the President's Recovery Act
investments. We're directing nearly $4 billion to public housing
authorities for public housing modernizations, including significant
green and energy-efficiency upgrades. We're investing approximately
$250 million more in energy-efficient retrofits of multi-family housing
with project-based assistance, and emphasizing energy efficiency in
Native American housing programs.
We are also using the Neighborhood Stabilization Program to
stabilize and revive neighborhoods with heavy concentrations of
foreclosed properties and are using sustainability measures developed
in partnership with EPA's Smart Growth program, such as access to
transit and use of green building criteria, to help direct that $2
billion resource.
Looking beyond the Recovery Act, our Fiscal Year 2010 budget
proposal includes initiatives to support sustainable growth. We propose
to create a $100 million Energy Innovation Fund that will help catalyze
a home energy retrofit market through innovative public and private
sector financing, and reengineering FHA energy efficient mortgages to
increase the number of homes retrofitted for energy efficiency.
But as HUD works to make buildings more energy efficient, offer
more affordable housing options that increase opportunity in our
communities, and help working families facing foreclosure or rapidly
declining home values, it's clear that we need to integrate our housing
and transportation systems in a way that encourages smart land use,
making our communities more resilient, more productive and more
sustainable for the decades to come.
Sustainable Communities Initiative
That is why our budget also includes a proposal for a $150 million
Sustainable Communities Initiative, to be managed by our new Office of
Sustainable Housing and Communities.
As the Chairman has said, we need to coordinate climate change,
energy, community development, housing and transportation policy in the
most comprehensive, holistic way possible.
I believe creating an Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities
inside HUD to serve as a single point of contact with other Federal
agencies is the best way we can achieve that goal. Already, these kinds
of offices at our partner agencies have helped break down barriers to
change--they have proven to be a successful model for interagency
coordination and collaboration.
First, HUD and DOT will jointly administer a $100 million fund to
encourage metropolitan regions, via competition, to develop integrated
housing, land-use, and transportation plans--and to use those
integrated plans to drive the planning and decision making of
localities, which will help increase transportation choices and reduce
combined housing and transportation costs for American families.
The goal of this initiative is not just to develop plans--it is to
articulate a vision for growth tailored to specific metropolitan
markets that Federal housing, transportation, and other Federal
investments can support.
Funding to these metropolitan regions would generally be used to
support the development of integrated, state-of-the-art regional
development plans that use the latest data and most sophisticated
analytic, modeling, and mapping tools available.
These efforts will benefit urban, suburban and rural communities
alike. The 2007 American Housing Survey estimates that nearly 50
percent of people who live in rural places today live within the
boundaries of metropolitan statistical areas. This requires a level of
integrated planning that spans jurisdictional boundaries in new and
unprecedented ways.
We can't afford to be territorial about these issues any longer.
Our fiscal year 2010 budget also includes a proposal for $40
million in grants that will be used to support metropolitan and local
leaders in making market-shifting changes in local zoning and land-use
rules. The grants will also assist States and localities to design and
implement a variety of planning reforms at the local and regional
levels.
As we work towards an integrated planning process, we will also
plan to recast the definition of ``affordability'' in America. With the
costs of transportation now approaching or exceeding those of housing
for many working families, we will work to jointly develop, with our
partners in the Department of Transportation as well with EPA, a
housing and transportation affordability index.
Just as a potential car buyer can see on the window sticker how
energy efficient an automobile is, we need the same thing for our homes
and our buildings. An affordability index will empower consumers and
businesses alike with the information they need to make informed
choices about where they and how they live, and in the process helping
to create a more dynamic, efficient marketplace.
That is why we intend to share all this data, research, and
evaluation with the private sector to catalyze innovation and maximize
market efficiency.
We will also conduct an intensive review of our respective programs
to ascertain how to support the marriage of housing and transportation,
and to emphasize location efficiency in all that we do.
In housing programs, for example, perhaps we can give preference to
projects that offer participants choices for public transit, employment
opportunities, and other important advantages. We have begun to do that
with the second round of Neighborhood Stabilization Program funding, as
I described earlier. I intend to subject all of our programs--including
FHA--to a rigorous review that determines how we can reorient the
business of our department in support of this integrated planning.
Finally, we are also establishing a jointly administered research
and evaluation effort. Our budget proposal requests $10 million to
support this research. This historic effort will aggressively engage on
joint data development, information platforms, analytic tools, and
research to better track housing and transportation expenditures by
location. It will establish standardized and effective performance
measures and engage in rigorous analysis of the transit-oriented
development projects already in existence to identify best practices.
And it will evaluate location efficient mortgages and energy efficient
mortgages.
Partnership Update--Livability Principles
I'm also pleased to report that since March, when we announced our
agreement with DOT, we have made significant progress. Teams from our
agencies are meeting on a weekly basis, and addressing each element of
the partnership.
Further, we are happy to announce that EPA is now a full partner in
this effort. They will work with HUD and DOT to address water
infrastructure issues, expand technical assistance to State and local
governments, return brownfield sites to productive use, and address
hazardous waste and other barriers to reinvestment in older
communities.
As a result of our agencies' work, I am pleased to join with my DOT
and EPA colleagues to announce a uniform statement of livability
principles. For the first time, these principles provide a uniform set
of guidelines for each agency to formulate and implement policies and
programs. More importantly, they mean that we will all be working off
the same playbook to better serve American families who expect more
affordable and sustainable choices in their communities.
For the first time, the Federal government will speak with one
voice on housing, environmental and transportation policy.
The first principle--Providing More Transportation Choices--
addresses our need to expand the options available to American
families, whether commuting to work, dropping children off at school,
or running errands. It is no secret that providing safe, reliable and
affordable transportation choices is essential to making a home
livable. Expanding transportation choices by making public transit,
biking, and walking viable options is also a key strategy towards
reducing our dependence on foreign oil, improving the quality of the
air we breathe, limiting the threat of greenhouse gas pollution and
protecting the public health.
The second principle--Promoting Equitable, Affordable Housing--is
at the heart of HUD's mission. A livable community must be both
equitable and affordable.
Livability is about more than just being efficient--we must also be
inclusive.
In order for our neighborhoods to thrive, our regions to grow, and
our Nation to prosper, we must support communities that provide
opportunities for people of all ages, incomes, races and ethnicities to
live, work, learn, and play together.
The third principle--Increasing Economic Competitiveness--pinpoints
the need to coordinate housing, transportation and environmental policy
to make us more competitive and productive. Our Nation's ability to
compete in a global economy is dependent upon how quickly and
efficiently we can connect our labor force to education and employment
opportunities. That mission depends on efficient housing and
transportation patterns that ensure the timely delivery of goods and
services.
The fourth principle--Supporting Existing Communities--identifies
the need to support community revitalization, build upon existing
public investments, and preserve our Nation's rural land.
This has been a historic role for HUD, through our block grant
investments in cities, counties and rural areas. It makes no sense to
ignore the vast resources ready to be rediscovered in America's cities
and towns. And when we take advantage of these cost-effective
opportunities to invest in our existing neighborhoods, we help mitigate
the loss of open space, preserve farmlands and reduce commuting burdens
on working families.
The fifth principle--Expanding Partnerships and Leveraging
Investment--focuses on increasing the effectiveness of American
government at all levels. We want to boost the capacity of local
communities to more effectively plan for future growth, by addressing
housing, transportation, and other critical issues through coordinated
work, and support the ability of local communities to think and act
regionally.
Finally, the last principle--Valuing Communities and
Neighborhoods--brings the entire effort together. We must ensure that
Federal investments support cohesive, safe, healthy and walkable
communities, whether in cities, suburbs, or rural areas. Research shows
that people who live in walkable communities are more active and less
likely to be overweight, thus improving their health. \2\ As I said at
the outset, each of the Federal partners represented today, while we
manage separate programs, must be dedicated to the single principle of
building strong, sustainable communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A Study of Land Use, Transportation, Air Quality, and Health
in King County, WA. Lawrence Frank and Company, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So we have our playbook, Mr. Chairman: strong evidence that by
working collaboratively across agencies--housing, transportation, and
environment--we can better rise to the challenges before us, and
implement the sort of innovative solutions that the American people
deserve. Solutions that will allow us to protect our environment,
support their mobility, and deliver safe, decent, affordable homes in
which to live.
But the real test of our commitment will be in putting the
principles into action. I propose to do that in several ways.
First, over the next few months I intend to implement a process at
HUD, led by Deputy Secretary Sims, and our new Office of Sustainable
Housing and Communities, to engage every program and every office, at
headquarters and in the field, to identify the barriers that they
encounter, whether institutional, regulatory, or statutory, in
implementing these principles. I look forward to working with you to
determine the best way to break down these barriers--be it through
legislation or regulatory reform.
I will also be asking for their ideas, suggestions and
recommendations about how we can incorporate these livability
principles throughout our programs. I will also reach out to our
partners, and work with them, to adopt these principles as they invest
in their communities.
This must be an inclusive process--and an inclusive process depends
on listening.
Second, I will ask our program offices to incorporate these
principles in HUD's next Annual Performance Plan, and our annual
Management Plan, which represents the operating statement for the
Department, both here in Washington and in 82 field offices around the
country. Our field offices are a unique and important resource for
bringing these principles to life in the communities we serve.
Third, we look forward to sharing with you the performance measures
that we are developing for each of these principles--so that they can
be measured in tangible outcomes on the ground.
As I told you during my confirmation, Mr. Chairman, I'm a numbers
guy. I believe in evidence-based government and accountability. I've
directed our new Transformation Office to develop strong performance
measures for HUD's programs, and I expect nothing less as we turn these
principles into policy.
These performance measures will form the criteria for measuring the
success of our proposed $150 million FY 2010 Sustainable Communities
Initiative. We will also look at ways that these can be used to measure
the results of other HUD programs.
So I'm optimistic--that with these ideas, these new partnerships
and the leadership of my colleagues here today--and you as well, Mr.
Chairman--we are poised to build the stronger, more resilient, and
sustainable communities Americans want and need in the 21st century.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee--I look
forward to answering your questions.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF RAY LaHOOD
Secretary,
Department of Transportation
June 16, 2009
Chairman Dodd and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Department of
Transportation's (DOT) activities in support of livable communities,
comprehensive planning, and sustainable development.
The President has made livable communities a key aspect of his
agenda and the Vice President has also highlighted it in his Middle
Class initiative. How a community is designed--including the layout of
the roads, transit systems, and walkways--has a huge impact on its
residents. Transportation and housing are the two largest expenses for
the average American household. Reducing the need for motor vehicle
trips and providing access to transportation choices can address this
cost and lower the average household expenditure on transportation,
freeing up money for housing, education, and savings.
The Surface Transportation Authorization provides us with an
opportunity to incorporate these important priorities into the Nation's
transportation policy. My Department looks forward to working with
members of Congress to make livable communities a centerpiece of the
new authorization. I'll discuss that in greater detail later. I would
like to first discuss the efforts we are undertaking in advance of
reauthorization to foster livable communities.
First, I am pleased to announce that Administrator Jackson of the
Environmental Protection Agency has joined the Sustainable Communities
Partnership between Secretary Donovan of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) and me to help American families gain better
access to affordable housing, more transportation options, and
healthier communities. This partnership will ensure that these housing
and transportation goals are achieved while also better protecting the
environment, promoting equitable development, and helping to address
the challenges of climate change.
Each agency brings particular expertise to the partnership that can
help institute real improvements in American communities. The agencies
have developed the following principles that will direct the collective
efforts for implementing this program:
Provide more transportation choices. Develop safe,
reliable, and economical transportation choices to decrease
household transportation costs, reduce our Nations' dependence
on foreign oil, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, and promote public health.
Promote equitable, affordable housing. Expand location- and
energy-efficient housing choices for people of all ages,
incomes, races and ethnicities to increase mobility and lower
the combined cost of housing and transportation.
Enhance economic competitiveness. Improve economic
competitiveness through reliable and timely access to
employment centers, educational opportunities, services and
other basic needs by workers as well as expanded business
access to markets.
Support existing communities. Target Federal funding toward
existing communities--through such strategies as transit
oriented, mixed-use development and land recycling--to increase
community revitalization, improve the efficiency of public
works investments, and safeguard rural landscapes.
Coordinate policies and leverage investment. Align Federal
policies and funding to remove barriers to collaboration,
leverage funding and increase the accountability and
effectiveness of all levels of government to plan for future
growth, including making smart energy choices such as locally
generated renewable energy.
Value communities and neighborhoods. Enhance the unique
characteristics of all communities by investing in healthy,
safe, and walkable neighborhoods--rural, urban, or suburban.
The agencies are working together to identify how we can align our
current programs to support these principles. We are considering what
the critical elements of a livability plan are. We are looking at what
performance measures can be used to determine whether the policy
objectives have been achieved and examining whether data exists to
support the measures.
The second area where the Department has already begun to emphasize
the importance of livable communities was through the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). ARRA created a discretionary fund of $1.5
billion available through September 30, 2011, for the Department to
make grants on a competitive basis for capital investments in surface
transportation infrastructure projects that will have a significant
impact on the Nation, a metropolitan area, or a region. Selection
criteria were recently established for these Transportation Investment
Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Discretionary Grants. Projects
that promote greater mobility, a cleaner environment and more livable
communities will receive priority over those that do not. This funding
will open the door to many new innovative and cutting-edge
transportation projects.
Applications will be accepted until September 15, 2009, with awards
to be announced no later than February 17, 2010. The TIGER
Discretionary Grant program provides the opportunity to highlight
projects that address livability and that make significant improvements
to communities and regions.
Why Livability Is Important
Our goal is to build livable communities, where safe, convenient,
and affordable transportation is available to all people, regardless of
what mode they use. For the past 50 years, most government investment
in transportation has undermined this goal.
In most communities, jobs, homes, and other destinations are
located apart and far away from one another, necessitating a separate
car ride for every errand. Coordinating transportation and land-use
decisions and investments enhances the effectiveness of both and
increases the efficiency of Federal transportation spending. Strategies
that support mixed-use development, mixed-income communities and
multiple transportation options help to reduce traffic congestion,
pollution and energy use.
A new focus on livability can help transform the way transportation
serves the American people and the contribution it makes to the quality
of life in our communities. Transportation can play an enhanced role in
creating safer, healthier communities with the strong economies needed
to support our families. As the population increases, we must identify
new strategies to move people and goods within communities and
throughout the Nation. Integrating transportation planning with
community development and expanding transportation options will not
only improve connectivity and influence how people choose to travel,
but also lower transportation costs, reduce dependence on foreign oil
and decrease emissions.
Livable communities are mixed-use neighborhoods with highly
connected streets promoting mobility for all users, whether they are
children walking or biking to school or commuters riding transit or
driving motor vehicles. Benefits include improved traffic flow, shorter
trip lengths, safer streets for pedestrians and cyclists, lower
greenhouse gas emissions, reduced dependence on fossil fuels, increased
trip-chaining, and independence for those who prefer not to or are
unable to drive. In addition, investing in a ``complete street''
concept stimulates private-sector economic activity by increasing the
viability of street-level retail small businesses and professional
services, creating housing opportunities and extending the usefulness
of school and transit facilities.
Mixed-use, compact development can result in an increase in walking
and biking to destinations of short distances. Currently, American
adults travel 25 million miles a day in trips of a half-mile or less,
of which nearly 60 percent are vehicle trips. A 2005 Seattle study
found that residents traveled 26 percent fewer vehicle miles in
neighborhoods where land uses were mixed and streets were better
connected. In these areas, nonauto travel was easier than in
neighborhoods that were more dispersed and less connected. If a large
share of the travelling public could walk or bike for short trips, it
is estimated that the Nation could save over one million gallons of gas
and millions of dollars in motor fuel costs per day. Reduced use of
vehicles for these short trips will also lower emissions, as these are
particularly polluting trips. The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention has extensively studied the benefits of physical activity
like walking and biking, finding that it can improve the health of
Americans and lower medical costs. A study in 2003 found that people
who live in more sprawling areas generally weigh more and are more
likely to have higher blood pressure than those that live in more
compact areas. The average weight of individuals who live in the most
sprawling areas can be as much as 6 pounds more than their counterparts
in dense urban areas with access to more active transportation options.
The elements of livability are important to both urban and rural
communities. A transportation system that provides reliable, safe
access to jobs, education, health care, and goods and services is every
bit as important to rural communities as it is to urban areas. Remote
locations present unique challenges to mobility, including ensuring
access for older citizens to services and activities. Providing
transportation choices can increase community mobility; but the types
of options in rural areas might be different, focusing on a variety of
intercity transportation investments. As economic development is
undertaken in rural areas, focusing that development in town and
commercial centers can increase access to necessities and enable one-
stop-shopping for many residents, thus reducing fuel costs and time on
the road and enhancing a sense of community.
For example, in Cheyenne, Wyoming, the City, County, and
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) developed PlanCheyenne which
is an integrated community master plan that defines the Cheyenne area
future growth. The plan places specific emphasis on integrating three
major elements of the community's planning efforts: land-use,
transportation, and parks and recreation and open space. The
transportation component of the plan promotes developing mixed-use and
activity centers along a network of principal arterials. Incidentally,
EPA worked with Cheyenne to engage residents in developing policy
options to implement PlanCheyenne's vision.
Livability incorporates the concept of collaborative decision
making. By involving the public early in the planning process and
coordinating transportation activities with other activities related to
healthy, sustainable communities, we improve the quality of life for
all Americans. Collaborative, interdisciplinary decisions get good
results, particularly more public support and reduced costs and time to
complete transportation projects.
Automobile congestion impacts our communities and quality of life.
According to the 2007 Urban Mobility report prepared by the Texas
Transportation Institute, traffic congestion continues to worsen in
American cities of all sizes, creating a nearly $80 billion annual
drain on the U.S. economy in the form of 4.2 billion lost hours
resulting from travel delay and 2.9 billion gallons of wasted fuel. The
report notes that congestion caused the average peak-period traveler to
spend an extra 38 hours of travel time and consume and additional 26
gallons of fuel annually, amounting to a cost of $710 per traveler.
Although recent data suggest that travel, as measured by vehicle-miles
traveled, has been less in recent months, we nevertheless need to give
that time and money back to our economy and our citizens.
Ways to greatly improve the efficiency of the entire transportation
network include expanded and improved transit services; increased
ridesharing; variable road pricing, managing freight movement and other
demand management strategies; and managing our road and transit systems
better through Intelligent Transportation Systems, and other traffic
flow improvements. Other options include integrated transportation,
land-use and housing planning policies that encourage mixed-use,
compact developments that reduce the need for motor vehicle trips and
support more transportation options to reduce travel distances and time
through cities is a very important part of livability.
The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) reports that
increasing numbers of Americans took transit--an estimated 10.7 billion
trips in 2008, the highest level of ridership in 52 years and a modern
ridership record. And this trend continued, despite falling gas prices
and an economic recession towards the end of the year. Increased
transit ridership is having a real impact on the environment.
There are great examples of communities that are implementing the
concepts of livability and are planning for a positive future. For
example, the Envision Utah Public/Private Partnership--partially funded
by EPA--was formed to guide the development of a broadly and publicly
supported Quality Growth Strategy, the Envision Utah Plan. This plan
guides development and creates growth strategies that protect Utah's
environment, economic strengths and provides a sustainable quality of
life for its residents. Some of the major goals of this plan include
increased mobility and number of transportation choices while providing
a wide range of housing choices for Utah's residents.
It was a priority for those involved in developing this plan to
ensure that families could live near one another throughout their
lives. This is only possible in an area where seniors can get around
even when they have to curb driving. And it is necessary to have a
range of housing choices that support people at all stages of life:
apartments for young people just starting out, condos or small houses
for young couples' first homes, larger homes for families and smaller
homes again for those who no longer can or desire to take care of a
large home. When there is a mix of housing types in a walkable
neighborhood, the Envision Utah effort found that it is more possible
for grandparents to live within walking distance of their
grandchildren.
Creating livable communities will result in improved quality of
life for all Americans and create a more efficient and more accessible
transportation network that services the needs of individual
communities. Fostering the concept of livability in transportation
projects and programs will help America's neighborhoods become safer,
healthier, and more vibrant.
Importance of Federal Transportation Investment to Livable Communities
Federal investments in transportation systems and infrastructure,
including aviation, highways, rail, bus, ferries, and other public
transportation, have been vitally important to the Nation's fastest-
growing metropolitan areas, small- and mid-sized cities, and in rural
areas. These systems create links between home, school, work, health
care, recreation areas, and other important destinations. Since 1984,
the number of cities with publicly funded passenger rail service has
more than doubled. A decade ago, two out of every five residents in
rural and small urban communities did not have access to public
transportation. Since then, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
has been instrumental in bringing new public transportation options to
dozens of these communities. Tribal areas also benefit from FTA
investments that afford greater accessibility and mobility options.
Federal transportation investment has increased mobility and
accessibility throughout the country. Businesses benefit from easier
access to suppliers, a larger labor pool, and expanded consumer
markets. These factors can reduce transportation costs both for
business-related passenger travel and for the movement of commercial
freight. Access to larger numbers of workers, consumers, and suppliers
also increases the attractiveness of a community to businesses. These
investments, combined with initiatives aimed at making the most
efficient use of existing capacity, will measurably improve quality of
life in America.
Changes in demographics, shifts in land-use patterns, and the
emergence of new job markets require different approaches to managing
mobility, particularly for people who may not be able to use existing
transportation services due to age, disability, location, or other
factors. Federal funding for public transportation has provided a
framework around which nine Federal departments are collaborating to
deliver community-based transportation services under various
authorities. These services, which may be operated by private nonprofit
groups and community organizations, offer a lifeline to persons with
disabilities, older Americans, and individuals and families who do not
possess automobiles.
The Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program was established
to address the unique transportation challenges faced by welfare
recipients and low-income persons seeking to obtain and maintain
employment. Many new entry-level jobs are located in suburban areas,
and low-income individuals have difficulty accessing these jobs from
their inner city, urban, or rural neighborhoods. In addition, many
entry level-jobs require working late at night or on weekends when
conventional transit services are either reduced or nonexistent. A
report published a few years ago by APTA noted that small urban and
rural communities may be particularly at risk, as nearly 2/3 of the
residents in these areas have few, if any, transportation options. APTA
found that 41 percent of the residents of small urban and rural
communities have no transit available to connect them to jobs and
services, while another 25 percent lived in areas with below average
transit services.
Transit-oriented, mixed-use development has the potential to
provide efficient and convenient options for employers, developers,
young professionals and families in many large and small cities around
the United States. It also allows people to age in place, and in the
same communities as their children and grandchildren, Transit-oriented
development also has the potential to contribute significantly to the
revitalization of downtown districts, foster walkable neighborhoods,
and offer an alternative to urban and suburban sprawl and automobile-
focused commuting. Moreover, transit-oriented development (TOD) in
areas with existing transit service can turn subway stops and commuter
rail stations into hubs for mixed-use development where workers can
walk (or connect by a short bus ride) to jobs, housing and services.
Over the past year, these communities have not seen as high foreclosure
rates as their car-dependent counterparts.
Linkage Between Transportation, Housing, and Livable Communities
Clearly the linkage between public transportation and urban
development is crucial, particularly when it comes to low-income
housing. Over the past 5 years, HUD and DOT's FTA have explored
opportunities to coordinate housing and transportation planning and
investment decision making. A June 2003 roundtable hosted by the
National Academy of Sciences focused on possible data sharing and
development of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) platform by the
two agencies.
Following the roundtable, HUD and DOT entered into a June 2005
Interagency Agreement (IAA) to help communities realize the potential
demand for transit-oriented housing. The IAA was aimed at closing the
gap between the projected demand for housing near transit in particular
metropolitan regions, and realizing the development of that housing in
proximity to new or existing transit corridors in these regions.
The IAA provided support for a jointly funded research study on
Realizing the Potential: Expanding Housing Opportunities Near Transit.
The report, published in April 2007 by the Center for Transit Oriented
Development, included five case studies examining the role of public
transportation in the location of affordable housing in Boston,
Charlotte, Denver, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and Portland. More recently,
DOT and HUD released a report to Congress in September 2008 on Better
Coordination of Transportation and Housing Programs. This report
outlines strategies to continue and expand coordination in the areas of
mixed-income and affordable housing choices near transit.
In addition, DOT and HUD have been working as partners to continue
development of coordinated, integrated strategies, methods and policies
to promote the role of public transportation in affordable housing. Key
among these policies and strategies is the integration of
transportation and housing planning activities.
Presently, transportation planning is carried out at the regional
level in metropolitan and urbanized areas or at the State level for
rural and nonurbanized communities, whereas housing planning is
conducted at the local municipal/county level. Bringing these disparate
groups together to integrate planning of housing development and
transportation improvements is fundamental to locating new and
preserving existing affordable housing in proximity to public
transportation. This effort will include:
Outreach to and capacity building for stakeholders;
Convening of expert roundtables and other forums;
Development of appropriate tools to support location
efficiencies;
Promotion of incentives for housing related transit-
oriented development within FTA programs;
Identification of appropriate research topics;
Development of performance measures, information systems,
and reporting mechanisms; and
Development of a Best Practices Manual--a multi-scenario
``how-to'' manual for promoting development of mixed-income
housing near transit, to be published by the end of the year.
DOT and HUD are developing a work plan for this effort, which will
provide for briefings between the two agencies to better understand
each other's programs and how their community development activities
can be aligned for greater efficiencies of Federal investments.
The Department has engaged its Volpe National Transportation
Systems Center to provide technical and logistical support, and is
using FTA's regional offices in this effort to facilitate better
coordination with our Federal partners, MPOs, State departments of
transportation, and grantees in communities where the planning is
actually carried out.
Finally, the Government Accountability Office is completing an
examination of this effort in both agencies. The Department will
certainly ensure that recommendations are appropriately acted upon when
the report is published. Although limited to affordable housing, the
results of this DOT-HUD effort will greatly influence and support the
Department's broader Livability Communities Initiative and the DOT-HUD-
EPA Partnership.
DOT has also initiated a Federal Interagency Working Group on
Transportation, Land-Use, and Climate Change in which HUD and EPA are
participating. The goal of this 13-agency working group is to identify
opportunities to better align Federal programs and resources to achieve
greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions through land-use solutions. The working
group is currently developing performance metrics, research, and data
needs for several areas where the Federal Government can begin to align
efforts to address GHGs. The results of this work will greatly benefit
DOT's livability efforts.
DOT's Livable Communities Initiative
I am committed to improving the livability of our Nation's
communities and, in fact, shortly after I was confirmed as Secretary of
Transportation, I charged the Department's Policy Office with
developing a DOT-wide Livable Communities Initiative. I am pleased to
note that DOT already had numerous programs that foster livability--
everything from funding for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, ensuring
safety, protecting and enhancing the human and natural environment,
connecting remote communities to needed services, to reducing the
impact of freight transportation, congestion mitigation, and traffic
management.
The ARRA also provided opportunities to promote livability. States
must spend three percent of their allocation on the Transportation
Enhancement Program, which is a primary source of bicycle and
pedestrian infrastructure funding. The remainder of the ``highway''
money is flexible, permitting States and metropolitan areas to spend
this funding on roads, bridges, transit, bike and pedestrian
infrastructure, freight and passenger rail, or ports.
Additional actions would enhance transportation's contribution to
strong and connected communities. First, the range of transportation
choices available to all Americans--including transit, walking,
bicycling, and improved connectivity for various modes--must be
expanded. American businesses must also have effective transportation
to meet their logistical needs so that they can continue to provide
jobs for their surrounding communities. All segments of the population
must have access to safe and convenient transportation options to get
to work, housing, medical services, schools, shopping and other
essential activities including recreation. Just as important, our
transportation investment decisions need to be consistent with policies
concerning greenhouse gas emissions. And efforts must be renewed to
rescue other adverse effects of transportation on all aspects of the
natural and human environment.
Although we are working to finalize the details, my goal through
DOT's Livable Communities Initiative is to enhance the economic and
social well-being of all Americans by creating and maintaining a safe,
reliable, intermodal and accessible transportation network that
enhances choices for transportation users, providing easy access to
employment opportunities and services. The initiative will need to
build on innovative ways of doing business that promote mobility and
enhance the unique characteristics of our neighborhoods, communities,
and regions.
Under the Livable Communities Initiative, my intent is to:
Better integrate transportation and land-use planning to
inform decision making about public investments;
Foster multi-modal transportation systems and effective
multi-modal connections;
Provide more safe transportation options to improve access
to housing, jobs, health care, businesses, recreation, public
services, and social activities;
Increase public participation in coordinating
transportation and housing investments;
Improve public health by reducing noise and air pollution
emissions and by increasing opportunities for physical activity
through walking and bicycling;
Plan for the unique transportation needs of individual
communities; and better accommodate the needs of our aging
population.
Reauthorization of Surface Transportation Programs
The current authorization for Federal surface transportation
programs--the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)--expires at the end of
Fiscal Year 2009. The timing is such that we have a window of
opportunity to think differently about transportation and propose bold,
new approaches to improve the livability of our Nation's communities as
part of reauthorization.
Whatever legislative approach is pursued, we will be taking a hard
look at potential changes to metropolitan and statewide transportation
planning processes to ensure that they improve livability. We believe
it is important to include the six principles agreed upon in the DOT-
HUD-EPA partnership to guide our authorization discussions.
The ongoing collaboration with our partners at HUD and EPA will
improve the linkage between housing, water, and transportation
investments and is a piece of the overall effort to combine land-use
and transportation planning. This shift in development of
transportation plans can provide for much more efficient Federal
spending and can ensure a holistic approach to transportation systems--
breaking away from the planning silos between transportation and land-
use plans.
The Administration's surface transportation reauthorization
proposal is still under development, and I look forward to discussing
all the options for making livability a real centerpiece of the final
proposal.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look
forward to working with the Congress, HUD, EPA, and the transportation
community to expand livability within our communities, including the
connections between housing, transportation, and the environment.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF LISA P. JACKSON
Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency
June 16, 2009
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am delighted to appear
before you today with my colleagues Secretaries LaHood and Donovan to
discuss our Agencies' work on sustainable development. Mr. Chairman, I
salute you for your long-time interest and work on the issues we are
here to discuss today.
We are happy to announce EPA's entry into the Partnership for
Sustainable Communities. I thank Secretaries Donovan and LaHood for
their leadership on this issue. EPA has been working for years on
issues of smart growth and this Partnership represents a real leap
forward for not only our agencies, but for the American people.
The Partnership recognizes that the work of our agencies is
connected. In designing or improving our communities to be sustainable
for the long term, mobility, housing, and environmental issues are
entirely interconnected. Working across agencies gives us an
opportunity to share knowledge, resources, and strategies that will
improve public health and the environment, cut costs and harmful
emissions from transportation, and build more affordable homes in
communities all over the country.
Most importantly, this Partnership acknowledges that the missions
of our three agencies do not exist in separate, distinct bubbles. Where
you live affects how you get around, and how you get around often
affects where you live. Both decisions affect our environment. In order
to have the most effective greenhouse gas reduction strategy, we should
have a strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled. In order to provide
truly affordable housing, we should take into account what residents
must pay for transportation, energy, and water.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, our presence together
here today demonstrates to you and the American people that we are
jointly committed to the Sustainability Principles that have been
previously discussed. This partnership will help advance each of our
missions. It represents a new approach for Federal agencies. Our desire
to work together on these issues is real.
There has been a long debate in this Nation about the appropriate
Federal role in relation to land-use decisions. While it is true that
development decisions are, and should be, primarily made at the local,
State, and tribal level, it is equally true that Federal policies,
rules, and spending influence development patterns. We have an
interest--indeed, an obligation--to ensure that our actions do not
favor development that adversely affects the environment and public
health.
When development contributes to the pollution of our waterways,
dirties the air we breathe, contaminates our drinking water, or
disproportionally harms disadvantaged communities, then it is a Federal
responsibility in general--and specifically an Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) responsibility--to protect Americans from these problems.
If we are smarter about how we grow, we can make America's big
cities, small towns and rural communities more resilient to the
economic and environmental challenges facing America. Through this
partnership, our agencies will work together to help make sure our
Nation has:
Well-designed, energy-efficient, and affordable housing to
meet the needs of Americans regardless of their income, race,
or geographic location;
An integrated transportation, land-use, and environmental
planning system with more options for reaching jobs, schools,
parks, medical care, and other basic needs; and
Waterways that are clean and safe for drinking, swimming,
and fishing, air that is safe to breathe, and land that is free
of toxic contamination.
We have created a framework that will guide the cooperative
development of policies, regulations, spending priorities, and
legislative proposals.
Around the country, communities are looking for ways to grow that:
Use less land and energy;
Provide safe, affordable housing options for people of all
incomes and at all stages of life;
Make it easier for people to get to their destinations on
foot, by bike, or by public transit; and
Direct growth to developed areas with existing
infrastructure.
Together, these development strategies emphasize environmental,
economic, cultural, and social sustainability. Our collective
implementation of those policies at State, local, and tribal levels
will assure that we accommodate our Nation's anticipated growth in
smarter, more sustainable ways.
Vibrant and prosperous towns and cities will attract the residents
and business investment needed for robust growth. When growth flows
naturally to these places, it makes it easier to protect environmental
resources such as forests and wetlands, and helps preserve wildlife,
farms, rural landscapes, and scenic beauty.
Smart growth principles are equally important in urban, suburban
and rural areas. A few weeks ago I visited Wyoming, where EPA's Smart
Growth Program helped Governor Dave Freudenthal initiate a statewide
conversation about the effects of the State's energy boom on its
environmental resources--how it was affecting the water quality in
Wyoming's renowned fishing rivers or encroaching on wildlife areas
prized by hunters. In one of the least densely populated States in the
Nation, residents sometimes found themselves snarled in traffic. The
jobs were not in places the employees could afford to live. Smart
growth approaches to problems like these are just as relevant in small
town rural America as they are in New York, New Haven, Birmingham, or
Houston.
Climate Change
At EPA, our focus will be on encouraging smart growth approaches to
protect human health and the environment. This includes using smart
growth as a tool to combat climate change.
Combined, buildings and transportation contribute 63 percent of our
Nation's greenhouse gas emissions. Smarter growth, combined with green
building techniques, can significantly reduce that number.
Climate change is no longer an academic discussion. We don't have
the luxury of a far-off day of reckoning. The world's leading
scientists predict noticeable, perhaps even drastic, changes within our
lifetime. These changes will only get worse the longer we delay taking
action.
We already see:
More drought in some regions, which may increase the length
and severity of fire seasons;
Stronger storms, which not only increase the risk of
flooding but can overwhelm overtaxed sewer infrastructure; and
Sea-level rise, which may have significant ramifications
for the millions of Americans who live along our coasts.
We must start adapting to these potential changes now, but we also
need to take more action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to lessen
the severity of these changes over the long term.
EPA is taking aggressive action to reduce our impact on the climate
while strengthening our economy. The President has committed to
doubling within the next 3 years our use of clean energy. And, we have
set an ambitious goal of cutting more than 80 percent of greenhouse gas
emissions by the year 2050.
Renewable fuels will help us get there. We are working to
strengthen standards that will increase the amount of renewable
fuels that will be used in transportation.
Greener buildings will help us get there. EPA is addressing
the many environmental and health impacts of buildings--
partnering with key players to improve green building
standards, support needed research, provide better information
to the public and pilot better practices in the field, while
taking the lead in greening our own facilities. In 2008, EPA
helped HUD build over 6,000 ENERGY STAR homes for the
affordable housing community.
Alternative sources of power will help us get there. The
EPA Green Power Partnership program works with more than 1,000
large and small U.S. companies, offering advice, technical
support, and tools to assist in the purchase of renewable
energy.
More efficient cars will help us get there. Later this
year, working with the Department of Transportation's National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, EPA intends to propose
the first-ever car and SUV greenhouse gas emissions standards
for 2012-2016 that will greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions
from new cars.
But, even all of these approaches--as important as they are--will
not be enough. Transportation uses 70 percent of the oil consumed in
this country and roughly 20 percent of U.S. CO2 emissions
come from passenger vehicles. More efficient vehicles and cleaner fuels
simply will not be enough to meet our greenhouse gas reduction and
energy independence goals. Reducing the number of miles we drive must
be part of the solution.
There's no need to wait for some technological breakthrough to
reduce the amount of driving we do. The technology to help people drive
less exists today--it's called smart growth. We know that investing in
public transportation, making communities more walkable, and creating
more housing near job centers results in less driving.
Clean Air
It is also critical to build on the progress in air quality we've
seen since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1990--and smarter growth
can help get us there. As we move forward, the continued integration of
air quality, land-use, and transportation planning will be important.
For over 30 years, EPA has been the lead Federal agency in
coordinating State and local air quality planning for all emissions
sources, including transportation. EPA helps State and local agencies
calculate emissions benefits from many of the strategies that support
sustainable communities--better transit, increased carpooling, and
other travel options. These resources can help meet Clean Air Act air
quality requirements and build better, more livable communities.
EPA has worked in partnership with DOT for over 15 years to better
integrate air quality, land-use, and transportation planning through
the Clean Air Act conformity program. The transportation conformity
program requires State and local agencies to regularly evaluate the
impact of new transportation activities on air quality. Transit and
sustainable planning play a key role in helping meet State air quality
goals.
Atlantic Station Redevelopment
But it is important that in addition to talking about lofty goals,
we can show the impact in a real world example: Atlantic Station is a
138-acre redevelopment project in Atlanta, Georgia. The former Atlantic
Steel Mill site that--with EPA's help--was reclaimed and redesigned to
help residents and workers significantly reduce the amount they need to
drive. One of the largest brownfield redevelopments in the U.S., this
national model for smart growth includes 6 million square feet of LEED-
certified office space, 2 million square feet of retail and
entertainment space, and 1,000 hotel rooms, and it will have between
3,000 and 5,000 residential units upon full build-out.
A shuttle system that carries 1 million people a year circulates
between a commuter rail stop and Atlantic Station. Space is reserved
for light rail service in anticipation of future transit investments.
Residents of Atlantic Station drive an average of less than 14 miles
per day, compared to 32 miles a day for the average Atlantan.
Although Atlantic Station is an example of a project that was
developed, in part, to support State and local air quality goals, it
was also good for water quality. Because it is compact, Atlantic
Station used much less land than a conventional development with the
same amount of housing and commercial space. This efficient land use
reduced annual stormwater runoff by almost 20 million cubic feet a
year.
Water Infrastructure
One of my priorities is to restore and protect the quality of
America's waterways. The impressive results from Atlantic Station show
that well-planned development can be part of the solution to water
quality problems and is a core quality of sustainable communities.
Another key aspect of sustainable communities is making sure that we
have reliable and safe water infrastructure. Having cost-effective and
reliable drinking water, wastewater treatment, and stormwater
management systems is integral to protecting our health, economic
vitality and environment.
EPA is poised to significantly increase its funding for wastewater
infrastructure through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF). The
FY 2010 Budget requests $2.4 billion, a $1.7 billion increase over FY
2009 levels, for the Clean Water SRF. This additional funding will help
communities meet the challenges of upgrading aging wastewater and
stormwater infrastructure. As part of our partnership with DOT and HUD,
we will work with States and tribes to harmonize water infrastructure
investments with transportation and housing investments to promote
smarter growth.
EPA will encourage States to direct additional funds to cost-
effective, environmentally preferable approaches to infrastructure
planning, design, repair, replacement and management that also promote
more sustainable communities. EPA will provide guidance and technical
assistance to States to encourage them to use Clean Water State
Revolving Funds for projects using green infrastructure and low-impact
development approaches to stormwater management.
In addition to improving water quality, the EPA's Clean Water State
Revolving Fund can support expanded housing choices and efficient
transportation. For example, in my State of New Jersey, the State
provides lower interest loans for water infrastructure projects that
serve developments that mix housing with retail, offices, and other
amenities and provide residents with transportation choices, such as
transit villages.
In rural areas, New Jersey focuses on replacing failing septic
systems rather than building expensive new sewer systems that can be
catalysts for sprawl. New Jersey has shown how Federal funding can be
used in both rural and urban areas to help communities develop and grow
sustainably.
Although Federal statutory authority does not require States or
tribes to adopt State Revolving Fund practices and policies that favor
smarter growth, EPA will provide technical assistance to those States
that wish to do so.
Healthy Communities and Equitable Development
Importantly, this new partnership with HUD and DOT will help us all
make communities healthier. With our coordinated approach, the tide of
growth and development will raise all boats. I am especially interested
in working with my colleagues from DOT and HUD to revitalize
neighborhoods that have suffered from decades of disinvestment.
Many properties available for development in urban and rural
communities are brownfields--properties where redevelopment may be
complicated by the presence or potential presence of a contaminant.
There are estimated to be more than 450,000 brownfield sites
nationwide. EPA's Brownfields and Land Revitalization Program is
designed to empower States, tribes, communities, and other stakeholders
to assess, clean up, and sustainably reuse brownfields sites. To date,
EPA's Brownfields Program has supported assessments at more than 13,800
properties and clean-up of 366 properties, trained more than 5,000
residents living near brownfields communities for environmental jobs
with a 64 percent job placement rate and an average hourly wage of
$13.81, and leveraged over $13 billion in cleanup and redevelopment
funding.
Redevelopment of such sites is often difficult--particularly for
disadvantaged communities. Because such sites are usually served by
infrastructure and transportation, they represent redevelopment
opportunities that are critical to transforming years of disinvestment
into a future of prosperity.
Healthy communities are not only environmentally healthy, they are
also socially and economically strong. They offer employment and
educational opportunities, safe and affordable homes, access to
recreation, health care, and other needs of daily life, all close
enough together that people can choose to safely walk, bike, or take
transit instead of driving.
This type of neighborhood is particularly important for children
and people who are physically unable to drive, or those who just find
it too expensive to buy and maintain a car. One study found that while
the average American family spends roughly 19 percent of its household
budget on transportation, households with good access to transit spend
just 9 percent. In too many poor communities, walking and bicycling are
neither safe nor pleasant, and public transit is just as often
unreliable or nonexistent.
A healthy neighborhood is one where residents can get to the
grocery store or the doctor's office without a car if that's what they
want. It's one where they can walk to the park to meet their friends,
bike to school, or take the bus to their job so they can read on their
way to work.
These kinds of neighborhoods exist all over the country, and market
demand for them is strong. In fact, the strong demand has driven up
housing costs in many smart growth areas, too often putting them off-
limits to lower-income residents.
EPA is already working to create more environmentally responsible
affordable housing in these neighborhoods. Coordinating with State
housing officials and the regional Council of Governments, EPA's Smart
Growth Program recently helped four communities in the Hartford,
Connecticut, area figure out how to use State affordable housing funds
to meet multiple goals. This project brought together local and State
policy makers, developers, and advocates to develop guidelines for
housing programs to create mixed-income, mixed-use, green, compact
developments with a range of transportation options.
One redevelopment--on the site of a 27-acre abandoned shopping mall
in Manchester, Connecticut--will receive EPA land revitalization funds
to help create a plan that protects an adjacent stream while making it
a key feature of the project. The design will allow residents to enjoy
this natural resource and support a healthier watershed.
As partners, EPA, DOT, and HUD can help communities make sure that
publicly financed housing is attractive, safe, and convenient to daily
destinations and that residents will have a range of transportation
options.
Conclusion
As a Nation, we face the most serious economic downturn since the
Great Depression. Every American is anxious about what that means--not
just for their future, but for future generations as well. We are all
working around the clock to get the economy moving again.
At the same time that we face this economic crisis, there is not a
moment to lose in protecting public health, the environment, and
confronting the rapid advance of climate change.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. Working
together, Congress, EPA, DOT, and HUD have a great opportunity to
achieve the economic and environmental goals President Obama has
outlined for our Nation.
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF CHAIRMAN DODD
FROM SHAUN DONOVAN
Q.1. The Sustainable Communities Agenda and Small Towns--In
Connecticut, in addition to cities like Hartford and New Haven,
we have many small towns.
It seems clear that promoting transit-oriented development
can benefit large suburban communities and cities, but how can
this sustainable communities agenda benefit small towns, such
as Torrington, CT, as well as rural communities?
A.1. Answer not received by time of publication.
Q.2. Housing Affordability--In the recent housing crisis,
foreclosure rates on homes near transit have been lower when
compared to homes not near transit, and housing prices near
transit have remained relatively stable. This suggests that the
affordability of housing is not just about housing cost, but
about the combined cost of housing and transportation.
What can the Federal Government do to help consumers get
the housing and transportation cost information they need to
make informed housing choices?
A.2. Answer not received by time of publication.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SHELBY
FROM SHAUN DONOVAN
Q.1. Secretary Donovan, many of the goals set forth by the
Sustainable Communities Initiative would seem to further
priorities that would result from decisions traditionally made
by State and local officials, such as the type of zoning and
city planning required for many of these high density projects.
While some communities will certainly wish to pursue these
designs, others may not believe this would be in their best
interests. What safeguards will be put in place within HUD to
ensure the continued independence of local officials in the
design of their communities? If State and local officials do
not pursue the initiatives and priorities of this office, will
there be any negative consequences as it relates to other
Federal programs or funding?
A.1. Answer not received by time of publication.
Q.2. Secretary Donovan, one of the factors cited as a reason
for the Federal Government to take action in promoting housing,
which offers the convenience of the option to walk for many
goods and services, is an identified pent-up demand for these
type of communities. Given this, and given the goal of
including affordable housing within these developments, how
does HUD plan to ensure that affordable housing goals do not
crowd out other Americans who are seeking to reside in these
communities? Additionally, how do the costs of providing
affordable housing within these settings compare with the cost
of providing affordable housing in other types of communities
within the same metro area?
A.2. Answer not received by time of publication.
Q.3. Secretary Donovan, obviously the needs and capabilities of
rural communities are going to differ greatly from the needs
and capabilities of more urban areas. If a larger mixed use
development may not be economically viable in a smaller, more
rural community, how will HUD ensure that these communities
will be able to participate in the Sustainable Communities
Initiative if they wish to so?
A.3. Answer not received by time of publication.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SCHUMER
FROM SHAUN DONOVAN
Q.1. Secretary Donovan, as you know well from your time as
Commissioner of the Department of Housing Preservation and
Development in New York City, urban areas face particular
challenges in trying to make their existing housing stock, and
especially their affordable housing, more green.
What plans does HUD have to try and incentivize owners of
affordable housing to undertake these greening efforts in
existing projects?
A.1. Answer not received by time of publication.
Q.2. Each of you have outlined the need for a coherent national
policy, with long-term goals and indicators of success in
working to develop more sustainable, energy efficient, and
clean communities, that needs to be coordinated across each of
your agencies.
As you know, my State has one of the largest urban areas in
the country, as well as some of the most rural. How are the
policy initiatives that your respective agencies are
undertaking going to affect both urban and rural areas? How do
they fit into the vision of a coherent national policy on
greening, energy efficiency, and emissions reduction? How can
Congress help you to achieve this goal?
A.2. Answer not received by time of publication.
------
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MENENDEZ
FROM SHAUN DONOVAN
Q.1. Let me recognize and applaud the Administration's
sustainable and livable communities effort to bring together
transit, housing, and environmental benefits. Which agency will
serve as the base for this multi-agency effort? Have you
thought about coupling HUD and DOT's efforts with additional
funding from sources such as the Community Development Block
Grant program?
A.1. Answer not received by time of publication.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR BENNET
FROM SHAUN DONOVAN
Q.1. A nice new neighborhood that is far away from good jobs
and good schools, will not be a nice neighborhood for long. How
can Washington's policy expertise and resources be harnessed
most effectively with local leaders who understand a local jobs
market and who know where the good schools are? I'm impressed
with what I'm seeing from this panel--the Administration
obviously intends to take an integrated approach. But local
housing and urban planning experts have the applied knowledge
of how particular communities work--how transit can interact
with affordable housing, for instance. In short, how does
Washington do a better job of helping particular cities
integrate their planning decisions?
A.1. Answer not received by time of publication.
Q.2. Efforts to support mixed income development fall short
without good schools. Secretary Donovan, how can you work with
local education officials to strategically support school
reform and to construct new schools in locations that
complement innovative development efforts?
A.2. Answer not received by time of publication.
Q.3. I am glad you include rural communities in your plans for
sustainable development. Can you talk specifically about the
challenges to employing sustainable development initiatives in
rural areas? Are there opportunities to work with the
Department of Agriculture on these efforts?
A.3. Answer not received by time of publication.
Q.4. A critical component of effective development is buy-in
and participation from residents. Will the incentives for
regional planning include incentives to integrate local
residents into the planning process?
A.4. Answer not received by time of publication.
Q.5. As you know, most HOPE VI projects have been successful at
leveraging public and private resources to displace the
concentrations of poverty we have seen in our cities. But
initiatives like HOPE VI, though critically important, can run
into local trouble when local residents worry that losing
affordable housing stock will displace people and break apart
communities. In short, what's good for a community in the long
run can be terribly disruptive in the short run. What lessons
have we learned from past setbacks at managing local
expectations, that we can apply moving forward? How can HOPE VI
be made to work better at managing local expectations?
A.5. Answer not received by time of publication.
Q.6. The HUD budget proposal for the Sustainable Communities
Initiative to provide $100 million for Metropolitan Planning
Organizations and cities or counties that receive CDBG and HOME
funds to collaborate on regional plans that integrate housing,
land use, and transportation, and $40 million to provide
challenge grants for local land use changes that support
regional objectives.
I can see the value of these from recent Denver experience.
For example, the City, MacArthur Foundation, Enterprise
Communities, Denver Foundation, and local banks have
capitalized a $15 million ten-year Transit-Oriented Development
(TOD) Fund, which will provide financing to preserve and create
affordable housing within a half mile of rail service and a
quarter mile of high-frequency bus routes. The fund will target
existing federally assisted rental properties; existing
unsubsidized rental properties currently affordable to
households below 60 percent of area median income; and
currently vacant or commercial properties with desirable
locations for new affordable housing. The Fund will enable
holding properties for up to 5 years, which is considerably
longer than most similar funds allow, but given the market
conditions near transit stations, it will provide the maximum
flexibility to secure long-term subsidies to preserve existing
rental housing. But at $15 million, it still is underfunded for
the need and impact.
Is that the type of programmatic activity you would seek to
finance under these programs? Can you give specific examples,
and the funding criteria and outcome measures you would expect
to apply, and how would you operationalize them?
A.6. Answer not received by time of publication.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CRAPO
FROM SHAUN DONOVAN
Q.1. As you know, there is a Section 8 funding shortfall
happening to a number of PHA's around the country. The Boise
City/Ada County Housing Authority has notified me that based on
the funding notice it received in May from HUD, for the period
retroactive to January 1, 2009, it is approximately $1 million
short and is preparing to terminate 400--500 families from
assistance. While I don't have information to indicate the full
scope of the problem nationwide, it is my understanding that a
significant number of PHA's are facing similar decisions. While
some appeal funding has been set aside, considering that
families receiving assistance are among our most vulnerable,
and landlords count on rental payments to offset their property
costs, and communities stand to lose more economic stability in
an already unstable economic climate, what is the Department
prepared to do to address a crisis which may greatly exceed the
funding that has been made available to honor existing
assistance contracts?
A.1. Answer not received by time of publication.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CORKER
FROM SHAUN DONOVAN
Q.1. Due to the challenges in the financial sector, hospitals
that are looking to expand their facilities or construct new
facilities that are needed in certain areas are unable to get
the financing necessary for these projects. Two HUD loan
program, Section 232 and Section 242, provide much needed
assistance to our health care facilities and have played an
important role in filling the credit void that exists for many
borrowers.
Based on your interpretation of eligibility, is it possible
for psychiatric hospitals to be eligible for either of these
programs? If so, what are the terms of eligibility? If they are
not, please offer you comments on the expansion of these
programs to include these facilities.
A.1. Answer not recieved by time of publication.
Q.2. We've heard from constituents who were informed by HUD
that the Section 232 mortgage program would soon, if it has not
already, stop insuring qualified medical facility loans. If
this is the case, can you explain HUD's rationale for this
decision?
A.2. Answer not recieved by time of publication.
Q.3. We certainly believe that there are still significant
challenges in the real estate market, and until confidence in
this market returns, buyers will be sidelined and our economy
will continue to experience stress. Contributing to the
uneasiness some buyers feel about conditions in the market are
certain HUD positions that may have exacerbated the uncertainty
currently existing in the housing market. One example has been
HUD's position regarding home service contracts, treating them
as a settlement service under RESPA.
What rationale does the Department have for classifying
these contracts as a settlement service?
Why did HUD question the propriety of selling these
contracts in residential real estate transactions? Does HUD
believe they afford consumers protection against unexpected
home repairs?
Does HUD believe that home services contracts, unrelated to
the lawful consummation of a residential real estate
transaction, should be exempt from RESPA, or should Mr. Ceja's
letter be rescinded?
A.3. Answer not recieved by time of publication.
Q.4. In urban centers across the country, there are obsolete
corridors--particularly commercial ones--where the population
has moved along, but we still have infrastructure in place and
not being utilized. We see this in places across my own State
of Tennessee where large retail centers or strip mall type
areas stand abandoned.
How do we find ways to create appropriate incentives for
private sector development in these types of areas that help
overcome the costs associated with EPA or ADA regulations that
often point builders in a different direction?
A.4. Answer not recieved by time of publication.
Q.5. In the City of Memphis, an estimated 10 percent of the
residential, buildable lots are vacant and the difficulties in
land consolidation and the environmental clean-up often
required is prohibitive for new builds. On the residential side
of things, do you have any suggestions as to what are the most
appropriate incentives to encourage development and
utilization? Should there be any distinction between
residential areas and commercial areas in your view?
A.5. Answer not recieved by time of publication.
Q.6. Do you believe that coordination between land use and
transportation infrastructure use needs to be mandated when
planning occurs? Far too often such planning happens in a
vacuum. How can we encourage reinvestment in aging
infrastructure instead of building new?
A.6. Answer not recieved by time of publication.
Q.7. Do you believe that under the Uniform Relocation Act the
rules and regulations have made the replacement of older multi-
family units prohibitive, even with multiple incentives
included? Do you believe that such regulations promote an
acceptance of very substandard housing in certain urban areas?
A.7. Answer not recieved by time of publication.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF CHAIRMAN DODD
FROM RAY LaHOOD
Q.1. The Sustainable Communities Agenda and Small Towns--In
Connecticut, in addition to cities like Hartford and New Haven,
we have many small towns.
It seems clear that promoting transit-oriented development
can benefit large suburban communities and cities, but how can
this sustainable communities agenda benefit small towns, such
as Torrington, CT, as well as rural communities?
A.1. Livability and transit-oriented development are not just
for large urban and suburban communities. Key principles of
livability/sustainable communities are to support existing
communities and to value communities and neighborhoods. Our
objective is to ensure that all communities--rural, urban, or
suburban--be sustainable in healthy, safe and walkable
neighborhoods, and to target Federal funding in communities to
increase community revitalization and efficiency of public
works investments, and safeguarding rural landscapes. To
provide a decision framework for this, there needs to be a
transportation planning process in all areas that calls for
coordination across planning disciplines. State and local
officials and transportation service providers, working through
this planning process, may develop better coordinated
transportation, housing, and land-use plans.
There is no ``one size fits all,'' whether we are talking
about livability and sustainability, or transit-oriented
development. Many small towns and rural areas currently do not
have transportation options available for their residents.
Without access to automobiles or trucks, these residents may be
disconnected to the routine activities that provide for quality
of life, such as medical appointments and shopping. A seamless
and integrated intermodal transportation network is as
essential to the quality of life in small town and rural areas
as it is to large metropolitan areas; only the scale is
different.
Q.2. Transportation Reauthorization--When we talk about
livable, sustainable communities, we tend to think of cities
and towns where people have real travel choices: they can walk,
bike, and take public transportation. We know the availability
of safe, reliable public transportation helps to remove cars
from the road, which reduces congestion, reduces our dependence
on foreign oil, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Your
department and my Committee both want to write a transportation
bill that serves the needs of America in the 21st century. One
of our priorities must be to increase the number of people who
have access to first-rate public transportation.
What can we do in the next transportation bill to make this
happen and significantly grow transit ridership?
A.2. What makes any public transportation system ``first-rate''
is reliability, convenience, accessibility, and safety. Of
course, everyone thinks that providing more funding to purchase
more vehicles and equipment with the latest technology is the
solution. But that's only part of it. We need to optimize the
operations and maintenance of our transit systems, to maintain
a state of good repair, and ensure that local and State funding
sources provide adequate funding for appropriate levels of
transit services.
Transit agencies need to have a stronger voice in
transportation planning to improve the modal balance in
transportation investment. Neighborhoods configured to provide
a mix of land uses provide easier access to nonauto travelers
and promote mobility for all travelers. Investment in
sustaining our transportation infrastructure will also
stimulate private sector economic activity, increasing the
viability of street level retail, creating housing
opportunities, and extending the usefulness of transit
facilities. Improving the accessibility and connectivity of our
public transportation network will influence more people to
choose transit.
Q.3. New Starts Program--The New Starts program, as authorized,
includes land use and economic development as key evaluation
criteria. However, the dominant criteria evaluated by the
Federal Transit Administration has been cost-effectiveness.
As we look at rewriting the New Starts program for the next
transportation bill, do you have any thoughts as to how we can
elevate the land-use and economic development criteria, and
therefore encourage the kind of mixed-use development around
transit stations that we are talking about today?
A.3. One of my key initiatives is livability and better tying
transportation investments to land-use planning, economic
development, and environmental goals.
The New Starts process has considered transit supportive
land use and weighted it equally to cost-effectiveness in the
evaluation and rating of project justification since TEA-21.
Since its addition as a criterion in SAFETEA-LU, FTA has been
considering the economic development effects of a project as an
``other factor'' in the evaluation and rating process. FTA has
been working for some time to develop a better approach for
measuring and evaluating the economic development effects of
projects, and recently put forth one possible approach for
public comment. FTA received over 80 comments on the approach
and is currently reviewing them before putting forth a formal
proposal.
Under my direction, FTA has also recently taken steps to
immediately give all of the New Starts project justification
criteria more comparable weights in the evaluation and rating
process. On May 19, 2009, FTA published a Federal register
notice describing its proposal for reweighting the criteria to
comply with the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act. Under the
proposal put forth by FTA, the weights would be: mobility
benefits 20 percent, economic development 20 percent, land use
20 percent, cost-effectiveness 20 percent, environmental
benefits 10 percent, and operating efficiencies 10 percent. FTA
is currently considering the comments received and will put
forth a final proposal in the very near future.
Q.4. Senior Mobility--Secretary LaHood, in your testimony, you
mentioned the importance of mobility for older Americans. Older
Americans represent the fastest growing demographic in the
Nation and, as indicated in your testimony, there is an
increased desire of older adults to ``age in place'' near their
families and friends. Without adequate public transportation,
it is too easy for these individuals to become isolated or
forced into nursing homes.
How can the livability agenda help ensure that seniors or
others with special transportation needs have access to
transportation that meets their needs?
A.4. Implementation of strategies that incorporate the
principles of livability will result in improved quality of
life for all Americans, including older Americans. As the
population ages, we must identify new strategies to move people
within communities and throughout the Nation. Integrating
transportation planning with community development will improve
mobility by providing transportation choices that serve
community needs, and improve accessibility and connectivity.
Likewise, planning for housing and companion services--
including that required for those with special needs--around
existing and planned transportation infrastructure makes for
efficient and effective use of those investments. This form of
integrated planning will strengthen the ties between
transportation providers and the communities they serve.
Local governments, transportation providers, and all
stakeholder groups will learn new ways to think and relate to
one another, resulting in the materialization of strategies in
many forms: multi-agency partnerships; more customer-driven
approaches to transportation delivery; innovative financing
approaches; etc. The livability agenda is focused on serving
the transportation needs of all Americans--drivers and
nondrivers alike--and values the characteristics of individual
communities and neighborhoods.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SCHUMER
FROM RAY LaHOOD
Q.1. Secretary LaHood, as you know, New York City's extensive
infrastructure system consists of nearly 1,500 highway bridges
and over 6,000 miles of highway. Furthermore, our transit
system in New York City, made up of over 700 miles is the
largest system in the entire country.
In light of the increasing significance that Mass Transit
has for the economy of New York, and the entire country, what
efforts has the Department of Transportation undertaken to
maintain and upgrade this critical infrastructure? How can
Congress provide the Department with more tools to do this work
in a cost-effective way, while at the same time meeting a more
rigorous energy efficiency standard?
A.1. Maintaining our Nation's transportation infrastructure in
a ``state of good repair'' is among the Department's highest
priorities. Not only do we strive to ensure that federally
funded assets are being taken care of and in sufficient working
order throughout their useful life--that is, that taxpayers are
getting a good return on their investment--but that the
transportation systems they support and that all Americans
depend upon on a daily basis are safe and reliable.
New York City, in particular, is home to our Nation's
largest public transportation system. It is hard to imagine the
impact to the Nation's economy if transit in New York could no
longer provide the basic mobility that so many millions of
riders depend upon daily.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides funding
to New York City and other transit systems across the country.
In FY 2009, Congress appropriated nearly $886 million in
formula funding for transit capital projects in the
metropolitan New York City area--a significant amount which
went to recapitalization. New York City was further
appropriated another $460 million for specific investments to
modernize its rail system. The American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provided another $1.18 billion in
formula funds for the region and $254 million for New York City
rail recapitalization.
While these are significant investments, they are not
enough. A recent FTA study on the reinvestment needs of the
Nation's seven oldest and largest transit agencies identified a
backlog of $50 billion to bring their capital infrastructure to
a state of good repair. Clearly, Congress needs to consider the
maintenance and modernization needs of transit--and highway--
infrastructure in the next reauthorization of a Federal surface
transportation program.
In the meantime, FTA has embarked on a wide-ranging
initiative aimed at better understanding the state of repair of
the Nation's transit systems and how improved asset management
and other practices might help mitigate the backlog. In
addition to the aforementioned rail modernization study, FTA
has established a working group with the industry to
disseminate best practices and consider a common definition, or
standard, for achieving a state of good repair. In July, FTA
brought together large and small transit operators from across
the country to further discuss issues--and ideas--associated
with this important topic. FTA will soon be publishing a
national and international scan of transit asset management
practices, as well as an expansion of the rail modernization
study to include other systems.
Importantly, in light of recent transit accidents that have
regrettably resulted in the loss of lives, FTA is particularly
interested in working with the transit industry to identify
those capital assets which are most ``safety-critical'' and
determine how their maintenance and replacement can be the
focus of local prioritization and decision making. Moreover, we
need to ensure that the replacement and modernization of our
transit systems result in investments which are energy
efficient and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We are excited
about the Transit Investments Generating Greenhouse Gas and
Energy Reduction program provided for by ARRA, and look forward
to a similar program in reauthorization.
Q.2. Each of you have outlined the need for a coherent national
policy, with long-term goals and indicators of success in
working to develop more sustainable, energy-efficient, and
clean communities, that needs to be coordinated across each of
your agencies.
As you know, my State has one of the largest urban areas in
the country, as well as some of the most rural. How are the
policy initiatives that your respective agencies are
undertaking going to affect both urban and rural areas? How do
they fit into the vision of a coherent national policy on
greening, energy efficiency, and emissions reduction? How can
Congress help you to achieve this goal?
A.2. The elements of livability impact both urban and rural
communities. A transportation system that provides reliable and
safe access to jobs, education, health care, and goods and
services is equally important to rural and urban communities.
Remote locations present unique challenges to mobility,
including ensuring access for older citizens to services and
activities. Providing transportation choices can increase
community mobility and allow seniors to age in place. Fostering
land-use planning that promotes clustered commercial centers
can enable one-stop-shopping for many residents, reducing fuel
costs and time on the road, and enhancing a sense of community.
Additionally, transportation planning is presently carried
out at the regional level in metropolitan and urbanized areas
or at the State level for rural and nonurbanized communities,
whereas housing and land-use planning is conducted at the local
municipal/county level. Bringing these disparate groups
together to integrate planning of housing development, land-
use, and transportation improvements is fundamental to locating
new and preserving existing affordable housing in proximity to
public transportation.
About 28 percent of the greenhouse gases generated in the
United States are attributable to transportation, so this is an
area in which we need to make progress. We must reduce the
amount of energy needed to operate our transportation system,
and that means moving more of our freight by energy-efficient
means such as rail and water, and making more strategic
investments for passenger travel. We need to accelerate the
introduction of energy-efficient cars and trucks.
To support these goals, we must be strategic about our
investments in existing infrastructure by supporting ventures
that will improve street connectivity and transit-oriented
development, which not only improve livability but reduce the
carbon footprint of our transportation system.
We need to ensure access and promote integrated planning
processes to make certain that the transportation system makes
a positive contribution to enhancing the livability of
communities. These are the types of investments that the
Federal Government should be making on existing infrastructure
to ensure that we are obtaining a high-return while effectively
contributing to a state of good repair of our existing
infrastructure. Congress can support these efforts by making
them a priority in the surface transportation authorization
process.
------
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MENENDEZ
FROM RAY LaHOOD
Q.1. New Jersey has many transit stations located along the
Northeast Corridor. If towns along this line want to promote
transit oriented development, they have to work with and get
permission from AMTRAK. Will you be coordinating your
initiative with AMTRAK so they are a partner in transit
oriented development? New Jersey also has many commuter rail
lines that share the tracks with freight rail companies. Can we
count on the Federal Railroad Administration along with the
freight rail companies to cooperate with this effort?
A.1. Although funding under the Federal Railroad
Administration's (FRA) High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail
(HSIPR) Program is intended for the development of high-speed
and intercity passenger rail service, not commuter rail
service, the HSIPR Program recognizes the benefits of commuter
rail service and transit-oriented development. The HSIPR
Program's application evaluation criteria takes into account a
proposed project's integration with local transit networks at
train stations and the proposed project's promotion of livable
communities, including the incorporation of transit-oriented
development. HSIPR Program applicants must reach agreements
with project infrastructure owners and service operators,
including the freight railroads and Amtrak where applicable.
Q.2. Secretary LaHood, one thing I have noticed in recent years
is that the strict cost/benefit analysis required by the New
Starts program has sometimes resulted in transit lines being
sited outside of city centers. This makes the projects cheaper,
but does not serve to generate development. In New Jersey, we
have seen that when you build where people live, as we did on
the Hudson/Bergen Light Rail project, billions of dollars of
transit oriented development will follow. Secretary LaHood, for
this reason do you think a transit oriented development program
should have as one of its requirements enough existing
population around planned stops to spark new growth?
A.2. I believe that consideration of existing population and
employment as well as projections for future population and
employment is necessary to perform a fair comparison of
projects around the country. Generally, transit performs best
in areas with sufficient densities of people making similar
trip patterns. Because these are long-term investments, it
would be short-sighted to base decisions on existing population
and employment alone. That said, the integrated planning
approaches we are promoting are intended to help advance
investments that will support future growth of the patterns and
densities needed to make transit successful and sustainable.
Q.3. How much do you think the issue of transit oriented
development has to do with the proper outreach? Many
communities have zoning and land-use regulations that have
their roots in the 1950s and 1960s. NJ TRANSIT has conducted
some 40 vision-planning sessions for communities it has
targeted for transit villages and it has seen the benefits, but
the costs, time, and effort it takes to educate citizens,
community groups, and local governments can be high. Do you
think such outreach would be worthwhile use of resources for a
Federal transit oriented development program?
A.3. Yes. Outreach and capacity building are critical to the
institutionalization of transit-oriented development, as it
engages practitioners from distinct specialty areas--land use
and transportation. While the linkage between transportation
and land use is generally acknowledged among these
practitioners, their orientation to this integral element is
rarely mutual. The focus on sustainable communities, however,
requires them to find common goals and objectives. Land-use
planning is locally oriented whereas transportation planning is
either regional or statewide. Awareness of their
interrelatedness, both in process as well as form, is most
effectively realized through vision-planning exercises. Vision
and grass roots based outreach and education to the public and
elected officials can have a significant impact on their
understanding and acceptance of alternative land-use
development that is more favorable to transportation, including
public transportation. In summary, enhanced capacity building
and outreach to all community stakeholders (individual
residents, transit agencies, government officials,
neighborhood/community associations, etc.) will enable
communities to make effective investment decisions and also
leverage the Federal investment.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR BENNET
FROM RAY LaHOOD
Q.1. A nice new neighborhood that is far away from good jobs
and good schools, will not be a nice neighborhood for long. How
can Washington's policy expertise and resources be harnessed
most effectively with local leaders who understand a local jobs
market and who know where the good schools are? I'm impressed
with what I'm seeing from this panel--the Administration
obviously intends to take an integrated approach. But local
housing and urban planning experts have the applied knowledge
of how particular communities work--how transit can interact
with affordable housing, for instance. In short, how does
Washington do a better job of helping particular cities
integrate their planning decisions?
A.1. Enhanced integrated planning and investment is one of the
key goals of the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
the Department of Transportation and Environmental Protection
Agency Sustainable Communities Partnership. Just as we at the
Federal level are talking and working with one another, we are
encouraging our respective community stakeholders to do the
same. We are reviewing case studies of cities and States for
which this collaboration actually occurs now. As a result, we
will be able to define elements of successful integrated,
comprehensive planning processes. We will work with local
communities to replicate these efforts in consideration of
their unique characteristics through technical assistance and
capacity building programs, and promote identified best
practices at housing and transportation forums across the
Nation.
In addition, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) assist Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (MPOs) with understanding how to
undertake integrated land-use/transportation/housing planning
in a number of ways. At the region level, scenario planning can
provide local planning staff and decision makers (local elected
officials and local planners as well as MPO staff) with
information on how various potential future transportation and
land-use scenarios might perform. When future land use and
transportation are analyzed in combination, it helps answer
questions concerning the impacts of future population and
employment growth and their impacts on land use and
transportation. The outcome provides decision makers
information on the implications of different land-use and
transportation scenarios which in turn can be used to make
decisions on what to include in the long range transportation
plan for the region. On a more location-specific basis,
planning for transit-oriented development (TOD) can similarly
lead to better integrated land-use/transportation plans.
Technical assistance has been provided and informational
reports are in preparation outlining the strategic policy and
programmatic opportunities available through MPOs to advance
TOD in hundreds of communities across the United States.
Q.2. I am glad you include rural communities in your plans for
sustainable development. Can you talk specifically about the
challenges to employing sustainable development initiatives in
rural areas? Are there opportunities to work with the
Department of Agriculture on these efforts?
A.2. We recognize that rural areas have needs that are unique
to their rural characteristics. For example, rural communities
are being affected by the aging of the population and often
have a higher percentage of older Americans who need access to
services while being dependent on the automobile.
Under the programs of the DOT, we have worked to include
rural America in the transportation decision-making process by
ensuring that there is a proactive effort for the participation
of the public and rural local officials in the statewide
transportation planning process. Encouraging this input into
the planning process provides rural communities with the
opportunity to foster transportation development in a
sustainable manner.
Small rural towns have the unique function as centers of
commerce and community interaction that are critical to the
sustainability of the area as a whole. Oftentimes, rural
residents are far from needed social services like health care,
education, and jobs. Rural areas also play an important role in
environmental protection, such as source water and endangered
species protection. Sustainable development in these
communities would mean providing for and supporting the
capacity for rural areas to maintain their rural character with
the mix of farming, craftsmen, and small businesses, and a
clean and healthy environment while also providing for access
to services to town and urban centers in a safe and reliable
manner. I believe we need to look at transportation from a
national perspective and identify the best ways to link points
of population and commerce, including the farms where our food
is grown, the industrial areas, recreational opportunities, and
the land borders and ports. Improvements to transportation
infrastructure are critical to rural areas with a high stake in
the agricultural economy. Certainly, we will look to the
Department of Agriculture for assistance in achieving these
goals.
Currently, the FHWA Office of Planning and FHWA Office of
Operations are working on ways to improve freight movement
across the country, as moving agricultural products to market
is a key for providing rural communities with needed resources.
DOT and USDA can work together to ensure more reliable and
sustainable freight movement.
Q.3. A critical component of effective development is buy-in
and participation from residents. Will the incentives for
regional planning include incentives to integrate local
residents into the planning process?
A.3. Since the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA) in December 1991 and throughout the
subsequent authorizations, public involvement opportunities in
the transportation planning process have been greatly enhanced.
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and State
Departments of Transportation (DOTs) now include public
involvement in the development of transportation programs and
plans. The public is given the opportunity to comment and
participate in the development of transportation plans and
programs through public meetings, stakeholder groups (e.g.,
bicycle, freight), use of the World Wide Web, and in some cases
use of visualization tools. However, there is much room for
improvement. I look forward to working with Congress to improve
the way complex issues are presented to the public and how
public input is integrated into transportation planning and
investment decisions.
Q.4. As this Committee drafts the surface transportation
program reauthorization, what specific changes should we make
to the way that current transit and highway funding programs
work in order to promote development that enables greater
mobility and reduced reliance on cars?
For example, some recent analyses of State transportation
spending show that our major metropolitan areas receive
dramatically less funding than their proportion of the State's
population, vehicle miles traveled, or economic output, all of
which are associated with the level of transportation needs.
We've heard in prior hearings from Denver Mayor
Hickenlooper and others that the current Cost Effectiveness
Index for Federal transit investment decisions does not
adequately take into account housing and economic development
impacts, or support local efforts to direct future growth
patterns along transit-oriented corridors.
We also need to assure that rural residents, of which there
are many in Colorado, continue to be well-served by
transportation spending.
But how would you modify the decision criteria, targeting,
uses, and funding or match levels of our highway funding
programs and transit programs to address the amount and use of
transportation investment in Nation's metropolitan areas for
more sustainable development?
A.4. In the proposal for an 18-month extension of the surface
transportation program, the Administration has proposed to lay
the groundwork for reform in the eventual reauthorization. One
of those steps is to create a program to support efforts to
coordinate transportation, housing, and land-use planning and
fund projects that enhance the livability of communities,
including transit and bike and pedestrian infrastructure.
We also put out a solicitation for grant applications for
the new multi-modal discretionary grant program created under
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery
Act). In that solicitation, we made clear that we are looking
for transportation projects that had both short and long term
economic benefits for communities as well as improve the
livability and sustainability of the community. We hope that
our administration of this program encourages Congress to
continue and expand this approach to ensure that the projects
the Federal Government funds are the highest performing and top
quality.
Q.5. The HUD budget proposal for the Sustainable Communities
Initiative to provide $100 million for Metropolitan Planning
Organizations and cities or counties that receive CDBG and HOME
funds to collaborate on regional plans that integrate housing,
land use, and transportation, and $40 million to provide
challenge grants for local land-use changes that support
regional objectives.
Metropolitan Planning Organizations in major population
centers across the country are inconsistent in their capacity,
governance, and regional representation. States currently
establish these structures. Many do not have effective land-use
planning abilities. Many do not fully integrate transit
agencies. Many are known for voting systems whereby suburban
and smaller communities dominate the more populous central city
and direct highway resources in ways that enable sprawl and
more vehicles miles, rather than compact growth or infill.
Do you have recommendations on structural changes to MPOs
that will help them serve as better regional facilitators for
integrated growth, potentially to consider in the surface
transportation program reauthorization?
Would you consider a new requirement in HUD Consolidated
Plan and annual Action Plan, or MPO Long-Range Plans and
Transportation Improvement Programs, that they demonstrate an
alignment of housing, transportation, and land-use goals?
A.5. Successful plans can be and have been implemented by MPOs.
Two examples are: PlanCheyenne, an integrated community master
plan that defines the Cheyenne, Wyoming, area future growth;
and Envision Utah Public/Private Partnership, formed to guide
development and create growth strategies that protect Utah's
environment, economic strengths and provide a sustainable
quality of life for its residents.
As part of the 18-month extension of the surface
transportation program, the Administration is interested at
taking steps to improve the capacity at Metropolitan Planning
Organizations to better coordinate transportation planning with
housing and development plans. We are currently developing
legislative language and hope to share it with members of
Congress in the coming days. Further, we look forward to
working with Congress to address these issues in a long-term
reauthorization.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CRAPO
FROM RAY LaHOOD
Q.1. In Boise, Idaho, a task force comprised of top level civic
and business leaders is working in the community and is
actively engaged in a comprehensive feasibility analysis and
implementation strategy for the Downtown Boise Streetcar which
can begin construction in 2010. The City of Boise will shortly
be sending you an application for a $25 million exempt grant
from TIGER for this project. Can I get your commitment that you
will consider this request and that your staff will work with
City of Boise on how best to proceed?
A.1. We encourage all project sponsors who believe they have a
project that meets the criteria outlined in our Federal
Register notice--long term outcomes, job creation, and economic
stimulus, as well as innovation and partnership--to apply for
TIGER grants under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
You have my pledge that we will carefully consider any
application submitted by the City of Boise and will work with
all applicants to ensure we have a thorough understanding of
the projects and their benefits before making final selections
for award.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CORKER
FROM RAY LaHOOD
Q.1. In urban centers across the country, there are obsolete
corridors--particularly commercial ones--where the population
has moved along, but we still have infrastructure in place and
not being utilized. We see this in places across my own State
of Tennessee where large retail centers or strip mall type
areas stand abandoned.
How do we find ways to create appropriate incentives for
private sector development in these types of areas that help
overcome the costs associated with EPA or ADA regulations that
often point builders in a different direction?
A.1. Changes in demographics, shifts in land-use patterns, and
the emergence of new job markets require different approaches
to managing mobility and development. Poor coordination between
transportation, housing and development policies can play a
role in creating these obsolete corridors. Improving
coordination between these policies and investments in housing,
transportation and development programs can help to reverse the
problem. They can also create stronger communities, better able
to weather economically challenging times. Over the past year,
communities with town centers, walkability, and transit have
seen lower foreclosure rates than their car-dependent
counterparts.
In the proposal for an 18-month extension of the surface
transportation program, the Administration has proposed to lay
the groundwork for reform in the eventual reauthorization. One
of those steps is to create a program to support efforts to
coordinate transportation, housing and land-use planning and
fund projects that enhance the livability of communities,
including transit, transit-oriented development, and bike and
pedestrian infrastructure. We are currently developing
legislative language and hope to share it with members of
Congress in the coming days. Further, we look forward to
working with Congress to address these issues in a long-term
reauthorization.
Q.2. In the City of Memphis, an estimated 10 percent of the
residential, buildable lots are vacant and the difficulties in
land consolidation and the environmental clean-up often
required is prohibitive for new builds. On the residential side
of things, do you have any suggestions as to what are the most
appropriate incentives to encourage development and
utilization? Should there be any distinction between
residential areas and commercial areas in your view?
A.2. Infill and urban growth strategies are necessary to
develop a truly successful livable community. One barrier is
that developers typically leap frog to cheaper land parcels on
the outer fringe of urbanized areas. Strong infill and growth
strategies are required at the local level to prevent such
development practices and this requires strong coordination
between transportation, housing and development planning and
investments. All Federal agencies must work together to ensure
that Federal funding promotes coordination, leverages scarce
resources and builds strong communities
Q.3. Do you believe that coordination between land-use and
transportation infrastructure use needs to be mandated when
planning occurs? Far too often such planning happens in a
vacuum. How can we encourage reinvestment in aging
infrastructure instead of building new?
A.3. Transportation dollars are most effectively spent in areas
that coordinate those investments with housing and development
investments. That is why we put such an emphasis on this
coordination in our solicitation for grant applications for the
new multi-modal discretionary grant program created under the
Recovery act.
We can also place a greater emphasis on bringing our
infrastructure up to a state of good repair. Over the past 10
years, the percentage of miles traveled on highways in good
condition has increased from 39 to 47 percent. Still, there is
much work to do. A performance-based system that prioritizes
asset management is something that many members of Congress
have expressed a desire to see, and we look forward to working
with you to address this in the reauthorization of the surface
transportation program.
Q.4. Do you believe that under the Uniform Relocation Act the
rules and regulations have made the replacement of older multi-
family units prohibitive, even with multiple incentives
included? Do you believe that such regulations promote an
acceptance of very substandard housing in certain urban areas?
A.4. The Uniform Act provides important protections and
assistance for people affected by federally funded projects.
This law was enacted to ensure that people whose real property
is acquired, or who move as a result of projects receiving
Federal funds, will be treated fairly and equitably and will
receive assistance in moving from the property they occupy.
Ensuring that comparable housing that is decent, safe and
sanitary is available to a homeowner or tenant displaced by a
project or program that receives Federal financial aid or
assistance is a bedrock principal and purpose of the Uniform
Act. There is nothing in the Uniform Act or implementing
regulations that has made redevelopment or replacement of older
multi-family units prohibitive or would promote an acceptance
of substandard housing. Agencies can and do utilize a number of
creative options to ensure that the Uniform Act requirements
can be met in a timely way. The provisions of the Uniform Act
can be successfully used in conjunction with a collaborative
development/redevelopment process. Given this situation, we do
not see the Uniform Act as a barrier to development or
redevelopment of older multi-family units.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF CHAIRMAN DODD
FROM LISA P. JACKSON
Q.1. The Sustainable Communities Agenda and Small Towns--In
Connecticut, in addition to cities like Hartford and New Haven,
we have many small towns. It seems clear that promoting
transit-oriented development can benefit large suburban
communities and cities, but how can this sustainable
communities agenda benefit small towns, such as Torrington, CT,
as well as rural communities?
A.1. The basic principles of the Partnership for Sustainable
Communities hold as true for small towns and rural areas as
they do for cities and suburbs. All communities can find ways
to direct development in a manner that supports existing
neighborhoods, offers more equitable employment and housing
opportunities, and offers transportation options that will help
residents rely less on their cars.
Rural communities can use these principles to direct
development while protecting farmland and natural areas.
Preserving the landscape is key to maintaining the rural way of
life. For many rural places, farming or tourism are major
economic assets and should be protected with carefully planned
growth.
Good planning can help with two issues that many rural
communities struggle with: young people leaving the community
to seek economic opportunities or affordable homes, and rural
poverty. By encouraging a range of housing types, rural
communities can give young people, older people who may be on
fixed incomes, and lower income workers new options to stay in
the community.
Small and rural communities may face additional challenges
where youth are drawn away from the community, particularly for
job opportunities not available in the community. Small and
rural towns are more economically, socially, and
environmentally sustainable when connected to a larger public
transportation grid that does not depend exclusively on private
vehicles. Where viable in rural areas, public transportation
allows industries to attract workers and professionals from a
broader area.
Small towns can revitalize their main streets, preserve
their historic neighborhoods, and make sure that they have
homes that young people just starting out can afford. They can
preserve the character of their historic areas while
accommodating new development, as Torrington is doing in its
downtown. Small towns often have brownfields that offer good
opportunities for redevelopment once they are cleaned up.
Torrington, for example, is receiving $1 million from EPA to
clean up and revitalize brownfields, which will help with its
economic development efforts by returning contaminated
properties to productive use.
Q.2. Brownfield Development--One part of the urban environment
in many cities is old industrial sites, or brownfields. In
fact, there is a large brownfield site in Bridgeport, CT, that
is also very close to public transportation. These sites
present a number of issues, including environmental concerns.
How can this interagency sustainable communities agenda,
and the EPA specifically, help communities tackle obstacles to
revitalizing these areas?
A.2. Cleaning and redeveloping brownfields is a key strategy
for sustainable communities. It can be particularly important
in addressing environmental justice and equitable development
questions. Brownfields are often located in poorer
neighborhoods and, until they are cleaned up, can pose risks to
public health and act as a deterrent to private investment in
the neighborhood. HUD requires disclosure of brownfield
properties prior to property rental or sale. As a result,
property owners or tenants are aware of brownfield issues prior
to their assumption of the property.
While they can offer great opportunities for
redevelopment--particularly when they are served by existing
infrastructure and transportation--the complexity of putting
these sites back to productive use can be daunting. HUD and EPA
will work together to make sure our policies ensure that former
brownfield sites can be put back into productive use in ways
that protect future residents, strengthen and revitalize
disadvantaged communities, and help local economies.
EPA's Brownfields and Land Revitalization Program has been
working for years to help communities overcome the challenges
of cleaning up and redeveloping contaminated sites. As I
mentioned in my testimony, the Brownfields Program has
supported assessments of more than 13,500 properties and
leveraged more than $13 billion in cleanup and redevelopment
funding. (Based on data collected from the EPA Assessment,
Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System (A.C.R.E.S.)
Database, which is collected and reported annually.)
Coordinating with DOT and HUD will help communities use these
funds even more effectively by better incorporating
transportation and housing concerns and tapping new sources of
funding.
As you know, Bridgeport has experience cleaning up and
redeveloping brownfields. It is one of the Brownfield Program's
success stories for cleaning up an abandoned factory and
redeveloping it into a baseball stadium and other amenities.
Bridgeport is also an example of how the Partnership for
Sustainable Communities could coordinate efforts. In
Bridgeport, the collaboration of multiple Federal agencies
allowed cleanup and redevelopment to progress well beyond the
assessment and planning stages enabled by EPA's initial
$200,000 brownfields grant.
Cleanup and redevelopment can also create jobs for
residents of disadvantaged communities. With effective
coordination, the Department of Labor, DOT, EPA, and HUD can
leverage efforts to provide jobs for local low income persons
living in economically distressed communities adjacent to
brownfield sites.
The Brownfields Program reports that it has trained more
than 5,000 residents living near brownfield communities for
environmental jobs. Bridgeport can claim one of these job
training success stories. The WorkPlace, Inc., first received
EPA Brownfields Job Training Grant funding in 2001. The program
has trained 248 residents from Bridgeport and Naugatuck Valley
and has a placement rate of 100 percent. Under the most recent
grant, which was announced in January 2009, The WorkPlace,
Inc., plans to train 55 residents from Ansonia, Derby, Norwalk,
Seymour, and Shelton, Connecticut, for green jobs such as
sampling techniques for soil and groundwater, phytoremediation,
energy efficiency, and green buildings. To date, the average
hourly wage for the individuals placed in jobs from The
WorkPlace, Inc.'s program is $14.20 per hour, and 80 percent
have retained employment after 1 year.
Other job training success stories include:
A project that created new opportunities for
residents of the Crow Indian Reservation in Montana,
training them in hazardous waste remediation and
ecosystem management; and
A project in Brooklyn, New York, that worked with
local employers to determine their needs, then trained
residents not only in environmental management, but
also in ``life skills'' that prepare them for their
future employers' expectations.
This sustainable communities agenda will encourage cleanup
and redevelopment of sites like the one you describe in
Bridgeport and will help communities meet environmental,
transportation, and housing goals with the same investment.
Q.3. Public Transportation and Climate Change--Public
transportation saves over 4 million gallons of gasoline
annually and reduces carbon emissions by some 37 million metric
tons per year. We also know that the transportation sector is
responsible for one-third of carbon emissions. In my view, any
climate change bill must address transportation.
What role could improved public transportation and
coordinated land-use planning play in helping to reduce carbon
emissions from automobiles?
A.3. Increased investment in transit and better land-use
planning around transit stations are two critical sides of the
same coin. For example, an EPA study conducted with the
Charlotte Department of Transportation found that transit-
oriented development around the LYNX light rail stations would
increase ridership by 6,000 trips each day, a 50 percent
increase over projected ridership without transit-oriented
development. Over their lifetimes, these homes and office
buildings would reduce emissions from vehicle travel by 2.5
million metric tons of CO2. The 2008 Growing Cooler
report, which EPA partially funded, estimated that compact
development could reduce transportation-related CO2
emissions by 7 to 10 percent from current trends in 2050.
Nationwide, there is significant potential for adding
housing and employment near transit. A study sponsored by the
Federal Transit Administration concluded that 14 million
households could be accommodated around existing and planned
rail transit stations. If just half that number of homes were
shifted to transit station areas, and those households drove 10
percent fewer miles, it would add up to 4.5 million metric tons
of avoided carbon emissions each year.
At the local level, there are often barriers that limit
this kind of transit-oriented development. However, these
barriers can often be overcome with Federal support. For
example, local zoning and parking regulations often need to be
updated to accommodate transit-oriented projects proposed by
developers.
The EPA Smart Growth Program recently completed a technical
assistance project to help Valley Metro Transit and the cities
of Phoenix and Mesa, Arizona, determine what policy and
planning options were available to promote transit-oriented
development around the light rail system and how to prioritize
implementation of these options. The resources developed
through this project could be helpful to other communities that
want to encourage transit-oriented development.
Additionally, although transit-oriented development places
a lower burden on a region's infrastructure, investments may
still need to be made to upgrade local facilities. For example,
sewer and water utilities serving it may need to be improved or
expanded to accommodate a significant increase in homes or
commercial buildings.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SCHUMER
FROM LISA P. JACKSON
Q.1. Each of you have outlined the need for a coherent national
policy, with long-term goals and indicators of success in
working to develop more sustainable, energy-efficient, and
clean communities, that needs to be coordinated across each of
your agencies.
As you know, my State has one of the largest urban areas in
the country, as well as some of the most rural. How are the
policy initiatives that your respective agencies are
undertaking going to affect both urban and rural areas? How do
they fit into the vision of a coherent national policy on
greening, energy efficiency, and emissions reduction? How can
Congress help you to achieve this goal?
A.1. As President Obama has said, our urban and rural
communities are not independent; they are interdependent. The
livability principles of the Partnership for Sustainable
Communities were crafted to apply to all types of communities.
We are still working on determining specific policy
initiatives, but I can assure you that all three agencies in
the partnership are concerned about protecting rural and small
towns as well as suburbs and cities.
We support the vision of a coherent national policy on
greening, energy efficiency, and emissions reduction and
believe that the Partnership for Sustainable Communities will
help get us to that vision. Coordinating transportation,
housing, and environmental protection goals will support
development that uses green building techniques, target new
development to areas where it makes sense to grow, and provide
transportation options that will help reduce pollution and use
less energy.
For example, as part of EPA's Smart Growth Implementation
Assistance program, the New York City's Mayor's Office of
Comprehensive Neighborhood Economic Development and the
Coalition for the Improvement of Bedford-Stuyvesant asked for
EPA's assistance in using smart growth approaches and green
building techniques for redevelopment in Bedford-Stuyvesant.
Through a multi-day workshop and policy analysis work, EPA will
be providing community members and the city of New York with
ideas on how development policies--from smarter land use to
green building standards--can be adapted to achieve additional
energy efficiency. It is anticipated that the results of the
work could be replicated in other areas--urban, suburban, and
rural.
------
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MENENDEZ
FROM LISA P. JACKSON
Q.1. Transportation accounts for one-third of U.S. carbon
emissions. Per passenger mile traveled, transit is one-third or
more efficient than a passenger vehicle, but when you factor in
the emissions saved from reducing traffic and changing land-use
patterns, the differences are truly enormous. In the upcoming
climate change bill will the Administration be supportive of
using pollution allowances to fund transit as was proposed by
the Lieberman Warner bill last year?
A.1. Supporting transit and transit-oriented development are
certainly important strategies for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. Americans want improved access to transit and better
housing choices. While a cap and trade system may directionally
encourage the use of transit via an increase in the cost of
transportation fuel, this indirect and relatively small signal
will not be enough to significantly shift travel patterns.
According to the American Public Transit Association, Americans
are riding transit in record numbers, with 2008 marking the
highest level of ridership in more than 50 years. And a 2007
survey by the National Association of Realtors found that,
three-fourths of Americans believe that improving public
transportation and building smarter development are better
long-term solutions for reducing traffic congestion than
building roads. That survey also found that more than 70
percent of Americans are concerned with how growth and
development affects global warming.
Increased access to transit will help many Americans reduce
their transportation costs. If people have more convenient
alternatives, it's easier for them to reduce the amount they
drive. In turn, the more we reduce the demand for carbon
allowances from the transportation sector, the lower the price
will be in allowance auctions. Better substitutes for driving
are also the key to protecting Americans from gas price
increases produced by global oil markets. It's no coincidence
that transit ridership increases when the price of gas rises.
Reduced driving also brings important co-benefits. Fewer
vehicle miles traveled will reduce criteria air pollutants and
can provide greater protections for those most vulnerable among
us from the debilitating health impacts of air pollution.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR BENNET
FROM LISA P. JACKSON
Q.1. A nice new neighborhood that is far away from good jobs
and good schools, will not be a nice neighborhood for long. How
can Washington's policy expertise and resources be harnessed
most effectively with local leaders who understand a local jobs
market and who know where the good schools are? I'm impressed
with what I'm seeing from this panel--the Administration
obviously intends to take an integrated approach. But local
housing and urban planning experts have the applied knowledge
of how particular communities work--how transit can interact
with affordable housing, for instance. In short, how does
Washington do a better job of helping particular cities
integrate their planning decisions?
A.1. We agree that local leaders know the conditions of their
neighborhoods and markets better than anyone from Washington,
DC, could. There has been a long debate in this Nation about
the appropriate Federal role in relation to land-use decisions.
While it is true that development decisions are and should be
made at the local, State, and tribal level, it is equally true
that Federal policies, rules, and spending influence
development patterns. The Partnership for Sustainable
Communities will support local leaders by giving them tools and
other resources to articulate and achieve their vision of
development in their communities, and coordinating the flow of
Federal funds to the local level to support these visions.
This partnership will work to identify barriers to more
integrated environmental, transportation, and housing planning
processes at the Federal, State, and local levels. Many States
already coordinate their housing, transportation, and
environmental protection goals and funding. This partnership
will help ensure that more States think of these three areas in
a coordinated way. When coordinated, these activities will
emphasize environmental, economic, cultural, and social
sustainability.
Q.2. Sustainable development in the West means, among other
things, managing our scarce water resources in a prudent
manner. In your estimation, what steps are necessary to ensure
we facilitate development that doesn't further exacerbate our
already precarious situation with regards to water, and
encourages integrating conservation measures?
A.2. EPA is working to foster a national ethic of water
efficiency so that water is valued as a limited resource that
should be used wisely. Water shortages have affected not only
communities in the western United States, but all around the
country.
The 2009 report ``Global Climate Change Impacts in the
United States,'' from the U.S. Global Change Research Program,
outlines projected impacts of climate change. For not only the
Southwest, but almost every area of the country, the report
projects increasingly scarce water supplies and more periods of
drought. This partnership will be working to remove barriers to
compact development and encourage more water-efficient
development all over the country.
Compact development saves water in two primary ways:
Large residential or commercial lots use more water
because they usually have more lawn or landscaping
space that needs to be irrigated. Lawn care uses an
average of 50 percent of household water use
nationally, and that percentage increases in some
regions depending on the local climate.
More spread-out development means longer pipes to
supply water to customers. The longer the pipe, the
more water lost to leaks. Drinking water systems lose
anywhere from 6 to 25 percent of their water through
leaks and breaks.
In addition to saving water, compact development saves
money spent on water infrastructure because less infrastructure
has to be built, maintained, and repaired. For example,
modeling by the Envision Utah project estimated that, compared
to a business-as-usual scenario, compact growth could reduce
water demand by about 10 percent and reduce infrastructure
costs by about 20 percent.
The effects of developing more compactly are complemented
by using green building techniques that reduce water use. In
June 2006, EPA announced WaterSense, an innovative partnership
program that helps American consumers, businesses, and
governments make smart water choices that save money and
maintain high environmental standards without compromising
performance or requiring lifestyle changes. The WaterSense
program is helping to reduce water use across the country by
creating an easy-to-identify label for water-efficient products
that is backed by strict criteria and independent
certification. Products with the WaterSense label use at least
20 percent less water and perform as well as--or better than--
conventional models. The WaterSense program is saving more than
277 million gallons of water per year and saving consumers $1.6
million on their utility bills.
To develop and maintain sustainable water management
systems and protect ecosystems, States and communities need to
meld the management of wastewater, drinking water, and
stormwater to reduce water withdrawals, treatment volumes,
energy consumption, and negative impacts on streams, lakes, and
coastal areas. We need to treat water more as a real commodity
and plan, design, and manage our water infrastructure
accordingly based on the true costs--direct and indirect--of
providing clean water for our communities. Maximizing the reuse
of wastewater, greywater, and the harvest and the use of
stormwater and snowmelt would reduce unnecessary treatment and
transport of water and the infrastructure necessary to convey
and treat the water.
Q.3. I am glad you include rural communities in your plans for
sustainable development. Can you talk specifically about the
challenges to employing sustainable development initiatives in
rural areas? Are there opportunities to work with the
Department of Agriculture on these efforts?
A.3. Smart and sustainable development makes sense for rural
communities and small towns for many of the same reasons that
it makes sense for suburbs and cities. Smart growth approaches
help rural communities and small towns save taxpayer money,
support Main Street businesses, and grow while protecting the
very assets--open space, farmland, and natural areas--that make
them such desirable places to live and work and that can help
them compete in the global economy.
There are at least two broad areas that present particular
challenges for rural communities. First is transportation.
Residents of rural communities tend to drive more than their
urban or metropolitan counterparts. This is to be expected,
given population densities and rural economies. However, public
investments in transportation enhancements that create more
walkable, compact small towns, coupled with economic
development strategies that help existing communities become
more vibrant and thriving, can allow rural residents to combine
trips and take shorter trips.
Even in rural areas, these strategies can make walking and
biking realistic alternatives to the automobile. Basalt,
Colorado, for instance, recently adopted a new policy manual to
increase mobility options and ensure that new street
infrastructure is safe for pedestrians, bikers, and
automobiles. Further, many rural communities across the country
are adding public transit options such as commuter buses and
vans that serve job centers, health-care facilities, and
tourist destinations.
The second broad challenge is water and sewer
infrastructure. Many rural communities are struggling with
failing septic systems, which pollute groundwater and cause
water quality problems for surrounding waterbodies. The most
common response to this problem has been to replace these
systems with centralized wastewater treatment, which can lead
to additional, uncontrolled growth. A better approach for these
rural communities may be to replace or repair those failing
systems with new septic systems. This approach respects the
rural character of these places, is fiscally responsible, and
allows EPA to better align our water infrastructure funding
with a community's housing and transportation needs.
There certainly are opportunities to work with the
Department of Agriculture (USDA) on smart growth and
sustainable community efforts. As you know, USDA is responsible
for many funding programs that affect the built environment in
rural areas. These programs include: utilities and rural
electrification, community development, small business
assistance, water and sewer infrastructure, the provision of
social services, and many other programs. EPA will continue to
talk with USDA to better coordinate our efforts to help rural
communities grow in ways that protect their environment,
economy, and character.
Q.4. A critical component of effective development is buy-in
and participation from residents. Will the incentives for
regional planning include incentives to integrate local
residents into the planning process?
A.4. Effective public engagement includes workshops that
solicit ideas and concerns from residents and provide feedback
on how these concerns are addressed. The public should be
involved at all stages of the development process to have truly
meaningful input.
There are many models of successful regional planning
processes that engaged the public on a large scale and for a
long period of time. The Sacramento Blueprint process brought
together more than 5,000 community members, elected officials,
and business leaders in workshops over 2 years. Envision Utah
incorporated input from more than 17,000 surveys and 2,000
attendees at workshops to develop scenarios for the Greater
Wasatch region around Salt Lake City.
It will also be important for these public engagement
activities to make a particular effort to engage residents of
disadvantaged communities, to make them feel welcome, and to
make them feel like their voices are being heard and respected.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CORKER
FROM LISA P. JACKSON
Q.1. In urban centers across the country, there are obsolete
corridors--particularly commercial ones--where the population
has moved along, but we still have infrastructure in place and
not being utilized. We see this in places across my own State
of Tennessee where large retail centers or strip mall type
areas stand abandoned.
How do we find ways to create appropriate incentives for
private sector development in these types of areas that help
overcome the costs associated with EPA or ADA regulations that
often point builders in a different direction?
A.1. The Partnership for Sustainable Communities will work to
reduce Federal barriers to infill redevelopment in a way that
makes sense--encouraging redevelopment that brings new homes,
jobs, and amenities while still protecting the environment and
disadvantaged populations.
New Jersey and Maryland pioneered the development of
``smart codes'' that adapts building code requirements for
renovation and rehabilitation of existing buildings, so that
reuse of existing buildings becomes as financially feasible as,
or even less expensive than, new construction. These States
have seen success in stimulating new development as a result.
During the first year the code was in effect rehabilitation
work in Newark grew by nearly 60 percent, by 84 percent in
Jersey City, and by 41 percent in Trenton. National standards
are now commercially available from the International Code
Council, for example, in the form of its International Existing
Building Code.
EPA is working with State and local governments to create
incentives for private development. For example, EPA worked
with the State of West Virginia to develop stormwater
permitting language that provides stormwater credits to
developers who redevelop already degraded land, such as large
retail centers or strip malls.
EPA's Smart Growth Program is working with national
standard-setting organizations to help revise other national,
State, and local regulations and guidelines that can be
barriers to infill redevelopment. For example, in many
communities, fire codes require wide streets in places where
more narrow streets would be appropriate. EPA brought together
a coalition of emergency responders, local officials, and other
experts to help demonstrate the benefits of narrower, better
connected streets in reducing emergency response time and
giving responders multiple routes to reach calls, while
improving health and quality of life in the community. One
national model for this type of collaboration is Harbor Town in
Memphis, where the Memphis Fire Department worked with the
Harbor Town developer to find street designs that protected
public safety but also maintained the community character the
residents wanted.
EPA also offers resources to help small towns navigate the
complex world of brownfields cleanup and redevelopment. Small
towns may have a site needing assessment, but may lack the
resources to get redevelopment started. EPA's Targeted
Brownfields Assessment program is designed to help
municipalities--especially those without EPA Brownfields
Assessment Grants--minimize the uncertainties of contamination
often associated with brownfields. Targeted Brownfields
Assessments supplement and work with other efforts under EPA's
Brownfields Program to promote the cleanup and redevelopment of
brownfields.
Chattanooga, of course, is a national model for smart
growth and revitalization, and we are interested in working
with you to take advantage of your experience in encouraging
redevelopment.
Q.2. In the City of Memphis, an estimated 10 percent of the
residential, buildable lots are vacant and the difficulties in
land consolidation and the environmental cleanup often required
is prohibitive for new builds. On the residential side of
things, do you have any suggestions as to what are the most
appropriate incentives to encourage development and
utilization? Should there be any distinction between
residential areas and commercial areas in your view?
A.2. The economic downturn, housing market crash, and fuel
price volatility have all contributed to soaring vacancy rates
in both residential (roughly 11 percent of all homes are
estimated to be vacant) and commercial (retail vacancies are
projected to reach 14 percent in 2010) buildings. This is in
addition to the vacant, buildable lots found in Memphis and
elsewhere.
Policies that encourage mixed-use redevelopment can
stimulate development and put to use the existing buildings,
infrastructure, and amenities that these sites offer. Further,
efforts that better connect residential and commercial areas--
either through closer proximity, better transportation or
pedestrian connections, or a mixed-use redevelopment--provide
residents and employees more transportation options. This can
be a critical benefit in increasing affordability for residents
and can be a powerful economic driver for commercial areas that
may benefit from pedestrian-oriented as well as auto-oriented
retail.
EPA supports the National Vacant Properties Campaign, which
works with communities to discover innovative ways of restoring
underused and abandoned properties to productive use and
disseminates these strategies to other interested cities. We
believe there is potential for programs under the Community
Redevelopment Act, or similar legislation, to be applied to
this issue.
As for the question about distinctions between residential
and commercial areas, the EPA encourages all brownfields site
cleanups to be performed through State Voluntary Cleanup
Programs (VCP). Under the VCPs, cleanup levels that are
protective of human health and the environment are determined
based on the future reuse of the site. In general, cleanup
standards are more stringent for residential than for mixed use
or commercial reuse. The Brownfields Program recognizes the
difficulties many communities are facing in addressing
brownfields sites. The program provides communities with grant
funding to assess and cleanup brownfields sites and information
on tools and resources to overcome obstacles and barriers.
Q.3. Do you believe that coordination between land-use and
transportation infrastructure use needs to be mandated when
planning occurs? Far too often such planning happens in a
vacuum. How can we encourage reinvestment in aging
infrastructure instead of building new?
A.3. Coordinating land-use and transportation policies not only
is a better use of taxpayer money, it also has the potential to
produce significant environmental and financial benefits. For
example, a 2002 National Academy of Sciences study concluded
that modest changes in growth patterns would save $109 billion
in road costs and $12 billion in water and sewer infrastructure
over a 25 year period. In another example, the ``preferred
scenario'' under the Sacramento Region Blueprint visioning
process concluded that more coordinated land use and
transportation would lead to:
Preservation of 64 square miles of farmland, a 38
percent reduction in farmland lost under the baseline
scenario;
69 percent of households living in walkable
neighborhoods, compared to 34 percent in the baseline
scenario;
53 percent of households living near major
employment centers, compared to 26 percent in the
baseline scenario;
38 percent more households and 41 percent more jobs
within walking distance of transit; and
A 15 percent reduction in CO2 emissions
per person.
Therefore, we support better coordination of land-use and
transportation planning. However, most State and regional
transportation agencies would probably need additional
resources for staff and analytical support to achieve
meaningful coordination. Any mandate should be mindful of this
implementation reality.
States can save taxpayer money; leverage past
infrastructure investments; and create jobs by directing
spending to the repair and upgrade of existing schools, roads,
sewers, and buildings, before investing in new infrastructure
projects. Public reinvestment in existing neighborhoods signals
a commitment to the area that can encourage private investment.
It also makes neighborhoods more appealing to current and
prospective residents and businesses. In addition,
infrastructure in already-developed areas is likely to be the
oldest and the most in need of repair. The longer repairs are
put off, the more expensive the maintenance burden becomes.
Several States use ``fix-it-first'' approaches, which
direct infrastructure dollars to upgrade existing systems
rather than constructing new infrastructure on the urban
fringe. New Jersey's Fix it First Policy, for example, focuses
funds on repair and upgrade of existing transportation
infrastructure, while the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection and the New Jersey Environmental
Infrastructure Trust prioritize use of their Clean Water State
Revolving Fund resources for programs that support development
in State-designated urban centers, urban complexes, and transit
villages.
Q.4. Do you believe that under the Uniform Relocation Act the
rules and regulations have made the replacement of older multi-
family units prohibitive, even with multiple incentives
included? Do you believe that such regulations promote an
acceptance of very substandard housing in certain urban areas?
A.4. The Uniform Relocation Act was passed by Congress in 1970,
and since that time has offered protection and assistance for
residents affected by the acquisition, rehabilitation, or
demolition of real property for Federal or federally funded
projects. It is an important tool for ensuring that existing
residents are not unduly burdened with displacement costs. The
program has been successful in ensuring that the costs
associated with moving and finding alternate housing solutions
are covered. It is also a critical part of ensuring that the
redevelopment of existing neighborhoods takes place in way that
is equitable and protects existing residents.
The Act has facilitated successful redevelopments across
the country, turning vacant, blighted, or substandard housing
sites into vibrant, mixed-use, mixed-income magnets for new
investment. The Act's requirements apply to many HUD programs,
such as HOME, Community Development Block Grants, and Section
108 loan guarantees. The Uniform Relocation Act applied to the
two examples below, which show that high quality redevelopment
is not impeded by the act's requirements.
Nonprofit organizations and community development
corporations often lead the way in the most successful
redevelopments, in which public funds are used to support
mixed-income and affordable housing redevelopments. For
example, the nonprofit organization Urban Edge, recipient of
EPA's 2008 National Achievement in Smart Growth Award,
demonstrated this approach in Boston in its Academy Homes
redevelopment, in which more than 200 mixed-income housing
units were created without resident displacement, and in
Egleston Crossing, a mixed-income, mixed-use, transit
accessible, and green redevelopment. Urban Edge's approach
prevents gentrification while improving the housing stock in
urban areas.
Another award-winning development, Southside in Greensboro,
North Carolina, used smart growth approaches to stimulate
redevelopment in an area where only 30 percent of the housing
stock was viable, by rehabilitating existing homes and
developing new single- and multi-family infill developments. As
a result, the neighborhood, which in 1995 generated only
$400,000 in tax revenue, is expected to generate over $10
million this year, reflecting an enormous increase in property
values in this centrally located, transit-accessible, mixed-use
neighborhood.