creating livable communities: an implementation guidebook - National ...

CREATING LIVABLE COMMUNITIES: AN IMPLEMENTATION GUIDEBOOK

Prepared by: The National Association of Regional Councils 777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 305 Washington, DC 20002 202.986.1032 phone 202.986.1038 fax www.NARC.org

Executive Summary Fred Abousleman Executive Director National Association of Regional Councils Over the last two years, the National Association of Regional Councils (NARC) has engaged in an initiative with its local government partners to examine how local governments and their regional planning partners can implement the federal livability principles successfully. NARC partnered with the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the U.S. Federal Transit Administration (FTA), National League of Cities (NLC), the National Association of Counties (NACo), the International City/County Manager’s Association (ICMA) and the American Public Works Association (APWA) to examine the relevance of the federal livability principles and found them to be the most comprehensive set of strategies under which local governments and their regional planning organizations could begin or further their work in this field. NARC utilized case study examples of local governments and their regional planning organizations’ livability plans and projects to communicate the challenges and opportunities that exist to planning and implementing the federal livability principles. The fifteen case studies included in this document also feed into the selection of model policies and tools, as well as the communication strategies and funding and financing options highlighted in this document. NARC also links, via its livability webpage, www.NARC.org/livability, the livability efforts of regional planning organizations and their local governments through an online resource center dedicated to the creation and promotion of livable communities. This connection will allow local elected officials, public works practitioners, city and county managers, and urban and rural regional planning organizations to identify solutions to their communities’ livability challenges. This successful project yielded heavy participation from all partners involved and resulted in far-reaching national impact. NARC looks forward to continuing these efforts and furthering important livability information, tools and partnerships for local governments, elected ofﬁcials, regional planning organizations and community stakeholders.

About the National Association of Regional Councils The National Association of Regional Councils is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit membership organization and public interest group, which advocates for building regional communities through the representation of multi-purpose, multijurisdictional regional councils (RC) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPO). These organizations serve local elected officials and community leaders in developing common strategies for addressing complex issues, in the areas of transportation, economic development, homeland security and environmental challenges. A recognized authority and leading advocate for regional organizations and solutions, NARC is a unique alliance with representation from local elected officials, RCs and MPOs nationwide. NARC has an active membership, representing more than 97% of the counties and 99% of the population in the U.S. Of the 39,000 local governments in the U.S. (counties, cities, townships, etc), 35,276 are served by RCs.

Overview Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve government, industry and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.

Project Background In 2009, the U.S. DOT, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) created the Partnership for Sustainable Communities (Partnership) in an effort to promote livable communities and eliminate existing barriers that hinder the coordination across federal agencies in pursuit of this goal. The Partnership sought to create more sustainable communities through the coordination of federal housing, transportation, water, and other infrastructure investments; make neighborhoods more prosperous; allow people to live closer to jobs; save time and money; and reduce pollution. To achieve these goals, the Partnership created six principles of livability to integrate into the affected federal departments’ programs, policies and legislative proposals. Since 2009, the Partnership has made progress toward improving community livability by supporting policy changes and the implementation of infrastructure changes either directly or through their state, regional and local partners. This includes U.S. HUD’s funding related to the creation of more livable, walkable and environmentally sustainable regions; U.S. DOT’s funding related to building livable, walkable communities; and, U.S. EPA’s funding to improve the quality of developments and to protect human health along with the environment.

Scope of the Project Guided by the Partnerships livability principles, NARC examined how to create and disseminate locally implementable solutions to achieve the federal level principles. NARC joined with the American Public Works Association (APWA), the National League of Cities (NLC), the National Association of Counties (NACo), and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) to understand how these livability principles affect local policy officials and practitioners. This research identified and disseminated tools and practices that local governments and regional planning organizations (RPOs), including RCs and MPOs, can use to plan, communicate and implement livable communities.

National Association of Regional Councils’ Creating Livabile Communities: An Implementation Guidebook

4

Table 1. Activities Engaged in by NARC and Partner Organizations in Support of This Project. Livability Literature Review: A Synthesis of Current Practice NARC’s literature review created a foundational understanding of how practitioners and other stakeholders understand livability. NARC reviewed over 130 documents from the local, regional, state and national levels which enabled readers to understand of how livability is interpreted among local elected officials, practitioners, public works officials, planners, MPOs, RCs and other stakeholders. NARC-led Livability Intergovernmental Advisory Group The Livability Intergovernmental Advisory Group (LIAG) included subject matter experts (SME), local elected officials, federal partners and other stakeholders. Through an iterative process, the LIAG helped test the relevance and applicability of livability products that NARC developed. The SMEs participated from urban, suburban, exurban and rural environments, which gave NARC insight into livability nationwide. National Organization Content and Product Review NARC tested livability concepts and products at 13 outreach and partner workshop sessions; presented information about the project to hundreds of policy officials and practitioners over the life of the project; and recorded feedback. This comprehensive outreach helped NARC develop a framework of replicable livability mechanisms that could be accepted by contrasting practitioners. Local Policy Official Message Testing NARC also worked with NACo and NLC to test and receive feedback about livability messages. NARC used livability terminology gathered throughout the research phase of this project and discussed the different phrases and initiatives used to carry out livability goals. These sessions helped develop a livability terminology framework that policy officials and practitioners can use to communicate the goals of their work. Case Study Development Based on feedback from the LIAG and participants at workshops, NARC determined that case studies are the preferred tool for demonstrating and disseminating information on how to create local livability solutions. Case study collection will continue past the completion of this report; however, there are 15 case studies included in this first release of this Creating Livable Communities: An Implementation Guidebook. Creating Livable Communities: An Implementation Guidebook (Guidebook) This document represents the final component of NARC and its partners’ efforts to create and disseminate information that supports the local and regional implementation of the federal livability principles. This document discusses the federal livability principles and provides successful examples of local and regional livability plans and projects to share. It also includes information on model policies, tools, communication and funding strategies.

National Association of Regional Councils’ Creating Livable Communities: An Implementation Guidebook

5

Guidebook Organization This Guidebook provides a wide range of information to those considering, engaging in or advancing their livability efforts. It includes a comprehensive review of scholarly and practitioner information, which frames the current understanding of livability. This Guidebook also includes a comparative analysis of real-world examples of each livability principle, as well as model livability policies and tools, communications strategies, funding and financing options and a variety of livability case studies. •

Chapter 1. Livability Literature Review: A Synthesis of Current Practice. This chapter frames the subsequent information by discussing how livability is defined and presents the ten most popular strategies used to implement the federal livability principles. This annotated version of the full literature review presents how the strategies are defined and implemented. The Literature Review is available at www.NARC.org/livability.

•

Chapter 2. Implementing the Federal Livability Principles: A Comparative Evaluation. This chapter expands on each of the six federal livability strategies with a review of urban and non-metropolitan examples from the local and regional levels. This review seeks to inform readers on the ways in which people interpret and implement these principles, but also extrapolate themes that may be related to, but not exclusively address, each principle.

•

Chapter 3. Model Livability Policies and Tools. This chapter expands on and discusses the tools and policies that local governments and RCs use to plan for and implement livability strategies.

•

Chapter 4. Communicating Livability Themes: A Strategic Approach. Transportation planners and practitioners often lack information on the ways in which they may effectively communicate their work. Because this project included a wide variety of audiences, this chapter includes frameworks through which audiences could consider creating effective messaging strategies and reach important stakeholders when developing support for this type of planning.

•

Chapter 5. Funding and Financing Options. One of the most cited barriers in planning or implementing livability strategies is how to fund this type of work. This chapter seeks to provide illustrative examples on the ways livability plans and projects are funded.

•

Appendix A. Livability Case Studies. Appendix A provides more in-depth case study information on those included in this Guidebook. Each case study will help readers understand the challenges and opportunities faced by local governments and regional planning organizations when creating these projects and how the project sponsors overcame those challenges.

•

Appendix B. Footnotes. Throughout this project, NARC and its partners compiled a large amount of information from a wide variety of sources. This Appendix will help practitioners find peer-reviewed and practitioner literature that may assist in their livability planning and implementation efforts.

NARC Project Staff Erika Young Transportation Director [email protected]

Valerie Hermanson Transportation Fellow [email protected]


6

Livability Intergovernmental Advisory Group

Julia Anastasio, American Public Works Association, Washington, DC Mary J. Anderson, City of Highland Park, Highland Park, IL The Honorable Matt Appelbaum, City of Boulder, CO Lindsay Baylay, Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, Chicago, IL Kitty Barnes, Catawba County Board of Commissioners, Terrell, NC Shannon Baxevanis, National Association of Regional Councils, Washington, DC Carolyn Berndt, National League of Cities, Washington, DC Randy Blankenhorn, Chicago Metropolitan Agency of Planning, Chicago, IL Scott Bowles, Town of Florence, AZ The Honorable Peter M. Corroon, Salt Lake County, UT James Cromer, Broward Metropolitan Planning Organization, Fort Lauderdale, FL James Davenport, National Association of Counties, Washington, DC Cory Fleming, International City/County Management Association, Washington, DC Andrew Gruber, Wasatch Front Regional Council, Salt Lake City, UT Jay Gsell, Genesee County, Batavia, NY Val Halford, Wasatch Front Regional Council, Salt Lake City, UT Valerie Hermanson, National Association of Regional Councils, Washington, DC The Honorable Kristin Jacobs, Broward County, Fort Lauderdale, FL Jonathan LaBonte, Androscoggin County, Auburn, ME J. Madsen, Salt Lake County, UT Kelly Mattingly, Town of Blacksburg, VA D. Michael Mucha, Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District, Madison, WI Stephanie Osborn, National Association of Counties, Washington, DC Michael Parks, Brazos Valley Council of Governments, Bryan, TX Kenneth Petty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC Jeff Price, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, DC Julia Pulidindi, National League of Cities, Washington, DC David Sander, City of Rancho Cordova, CA Greg Stuart, Broward Metropolitan Planning Organization, Fort Lauderdale, FL Leslie Wollack, National League of Cities, Washington, DC Lyle Wray, Capitol Region Council of Governments, Hartford, CT Erika Young, National Association of Regional Councils, Washington, DC


7

Table of Contents Preface

Introduction 9

List of Tables and Figures

10

List of Abbreviations and Symbols

10

Chapter 1.

Livabiltiy Literature Review: A Synthesis of Current Practice

12

Chapter 2. Implementing the Federal Livability Principles: A Comparative Evaluation 20 Coordinate and leverage federal policies Provide more transportation options and investment Promote equitable, affordable housing Value communities and neighborhoods Enhanced economic competitiveness Support existing communities Chapter 3. Model Policies and Tools 27 Context Sensitive Solutions Smart Growth New Urbanism Complete Streets Transit-Oriented Development Lifelong Communities Placemaking Safe Routes to School Chapter 4. Communications Strategies Smart Growth Complete Streets Lifelong Communities Safe Routes to School

Context Sensitive Solutions New Urbanism Transit-Oriented Development Placemaking

36

Chapter 5. Funding and Financing Options Livability Principle 1: Provide more transportation options Livability Principle 2: Promote equitable, affordable housing Livability Principle 3: Enhanced economic competitiveness Livability Principle 4: Support existing communities Livability Principle 5: Coordinate and leverage federal policies and investments (not included in this report) Livability Principle 6: Value communities and neighborhoods

45

Appendix A. Livability Case Studies Atlanta, GA: Livable Centers Initiative City of Lauderdale Lakes, FL: A Citizens’ Master Plan Des Moines, IA: The Tomorrow Plan East Central, WI: Regional Safe Routes in Wisconsin Genesee County, NY: Water Quality and Smart Growth Plan Greater Philadelphia, PA: Transportation and Community Development Initiative Kimberly, WI: Kimberly Mill Redevelopment Strategy Mableton, GA: Building a Lifelong Community Muskegon, WI: Muskegon Area-Wide Plan Niles, IL: Community Rain Garden Oak Park, IL: Parking Strategies for Economic Revitalization Salt Lake City, UT: Life on State Street Salt Lake City, UT: Wasatch Choice for 2040 South and West Cook County, IL: Interjurisdictional Housing Collaboratives Southern California: Compass Blueprint

51

Appendix B. Footnotes

82


8

Preface Introduction Purpose and Background The primary purpose of this report, Creating Livable Communities: An Implementation Guidebook, is to highlight and disseminate tactics that local governments and regional planning organizations can use to implement the federal livability strategies identified by the federal Partnership. NARC intends for this information to be useful to a wide range of audiences, including transportation planners, public works officials, city and county managers, as well as local elected officials. This report offers a broad view of the ways in which varying regions understand, implement and communicate their livability work, across all regions - large, small, urban and rural. NARC partnered with the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), National League of Cities (NLC), the National Association of Counties (NACo), the International City/County Manager’s Association (ICMA) and the American Public Works Association (APWA) to examine the relevance of the Partnership’s six federal livability principles and found them to be the most comprehensive set of understood and applicable strategies under which local governments and their regional councils (RCs) could begin or further their work in this field. Through the involvement of the project’s Local Intergovernmental Advisory Council (LIAG), NARC and the Project Team guided the development of this Guidebook and vetted its findings from the national level through the local and regional levels by including leaders in the local and regional livability planning and implementation field. NARC and its partners identified the ten most popular ways in which regions and their local governments understood livability and used that information to gather additional information on perspectives from the local government and regional planning organization level.

Case Studies This Guidebook primarily utilizes case study examples of local governments and their RCs livability plans and projects to convey the challenges and opportunities to planning and implementing the federal livability principles. The case studies included in this document also feed into the selection of model policies and tools, as well as the communication, and funding and financing strategies highlighted in this document. The report includes 15 case studies that represent examples that range from very mature livability efforts to newly emerging efforts. Each case study communicates why the region needed a livable communities approach to solve their challenge, a description of the project, how the author implemented the project and what outcomes were reached as a result of the project. Contact information is also included for those seeking additional information.

Conclusion The research conducted here demonstrates the wide range of applicable techniques employed by local governments and their regional councils to implement a largely consistent interpretation of the federal livability strategies. While rural regions would benefit from a tailored outreach to understand the ways in which the current federal activities could apply to their regions, many local governments and regional planning organizations continue to find new and innovative ways of solving their regions policy challenges with livability solutions.


9

Lists of Tables and Figures Page

Table or Figure

5

Table 1. Activities Engaged in by NARC and Partner Organizations in Support of This Project.

21

Table 2.1 Transportation Themes in Select Case Studies.

22

Table 2.2 Housing Themes in Select Case Studies.

23

Table 2.3 Economic Competitiveness in Select Case Studies.

24

Table 2.4 Community Preservation and Revitalization Themes in Select Case Studies.

25

Table 2.5 Coordination and Leveraging Themes in Select Case Studies.

26

Table 2.6 Valuing Themes in Select Case Studies.

46

Table 5.7 Livability Principle 1: Provide More Transportation Choices.

47

Table 5.8 Livability Principle 2: Promote Affordable Housing.

48

Table 5.9 Livability Principle 3: Enhanced Economic Competitiveness.

49

Table 5.10 Livability Principle 4: Support Existing Communities.

50

Table 5.11 Livability Principle 6: Value Communities and Neighborhoods.

13

Figure 1.1 Livability Word Cloud.

36

Figure 4.1 One example of a communication model.

37

Figure 4.2 DVRPC Smart Growth Interactive Website.

38

Figure 4.3 NYC DOT Curbside Haiku Marketing Promotion.

39

Figure 4.4 Lifelong Communities Advertising Placement.

40

Figure 4.5 Safe Routes to School Advertisement.

41

Figure 4.6 CSS Champions Symbol.

42

Figure 4.7 Mueller New Urbanism Website Advertisement.

43

Figure 4.8 Transit-Oriented Development on H Street.

44

Figure 4.9 ArtPrize Website as an Example of Placemaking.

Lists of Abbreviations and Symbols AARP

American Association of Retired Persons Coca-Cola®

The Coca-Cola Company

APTA

American Public Transportation Association

COG

council of governments

APWA

American Public Works Association

CRA

Community Redevelopment Agency

ARC

Atlanta Regional Commission

CRCOG

Capitol Region Council of Government

ARDC

Arrowhead Regional Development Commission

CRP

Community Redevelopment Plan

BCC

Business and Civic Council

CS

Complete Streets

BRT

Bus Rapid Transit

CSHCDC

Chicago Southland Housing and Community Development Collaborative

CDTC

Capital District Transportation Committee

CSS/D

Context Sensitive Solutions/Design

CDC

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

DMAMPO

Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

CMAP

Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

DOJ

Department of Justice

CN

Canadian National

CNU

Congress for New Urbanism


10

DOT

Department of Transportation

NCSRTS

National Center for Safe Routes to School

DVRPC

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission

NLC

National League of Cities

EDI-SP

Economic Development Initiative Special Project

NOFA

Notice of Funding Availability

ECW

East Central Wisconsin

NU

New Urbanism

ECWRPC

East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission

Partnership

Partnership for Sustainable Communities

EDD

economic development district

PLC

Partners for Livable Communities

EPA

Environmental Protection Agency

PPS

Project for Public Spaces

FHWA

Federal Highway Administration

RC

Regional Council

FTA

Federal Transit Administration

RPO

regional planning organization

GTC

Genesee Transportation Commission

RTP

regional transportation plan

GHG

greenhouse gas

SCAG

Southern California Association of Governments

Guidebook

Creating Livable Communities: An Implementation Guidebook

SCS

Sustainable Communities Strategy

HUD

Housing and Urban Development

SG

Smart Growth

ICMA

International City/County Management Association

SGA

Smart Growth America

IEPA

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

SGIA

Smart Growth Implementation Assistance

ITE

Institute of Transportation Engineers

SGN

Smart Growth Network

LCI

Livable Communities Initiative

SME

Subject Matter Expert

LCTF

Livable Communities Task Force

SNHRPC

Southern New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission

LEED ND

Leadership for Energy and Environmental SRTS Design Neighborhood Development

Safe Routes to Schools

LEED AP

Leadership for Energy and Environmental STP Design Accredited Professional

Surface Transportation Program

LIAG

Livability Intergovernmental Advisory Group

TCDI

Transportation and Community Development Initiative

Literature Review

Livability Literature Review: A Synthesis of Current Practice

TCRP

Transit Cooperative Research Program

MAG

Maricopa Association of Governments

Brundtland Commission

1987 United Nations Brundtland World Commission on Environment and Development

MAP

Muskegon Area-Wide Plan

The Vision

Wasatch Choice for 2040 Vision

MMC

Metropolitan Mayors Caucus

TOD

transit-oriented development

MPC

Metropolitan Planning Council

TRB

Transportation Research Board

MPO

metropolitan planning organization

USDA

U.S. Department of Agriculture

MSAs

metropolitan statistical areas

USGBC

United States Green Building Council

N4A

National Association for Area Agencies on Aging

UTA

Utah Transit Agency

NACo

National Association of Counties

VTPI

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

NAHB

National Association of Home Builders

WCCHC

West Cook County Housing Collaborative

NARC

National Association of Regional Councils

WFRC

Wasatch Front Regional Council

NCSC

National Complete Streets Coalition

WMSRDC

West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission


11

Chapter 1 Livability Literature Review: A Synthesis of Current Practice The following literature review, Livability Literature Review: A Synthesis of Current Practice, is an abridged version of the full document that was submitted to the Transportation Research Board (TRB) on July 31, 2012. The full literature review can be found on the National Association of Regional Councils’ (NARC) dedicated livability portal www.NARC.org/livabilty.

Abstract In 2009, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) collaborated to form the Partnership for Sustainable Communities (Partnership). The Partnership developed six livability principles to improve access to affordable housing, provide more transportation options, and lower transportation costs, while protecting the environment in communities nationwide.1 Using the Partnership’s livability principles as guidance, NARC conducted an extensive review of local and regional comprehensive and master plans, reports and policy documents. The literature revealed difficulty in creating livability consensus concepts, livability and sustainability used as interchangeable terms, and ten trending topics used by practitioners to achieve livability goals. While the ten trending topics are not exhaustive, it serves as a starting point to further understand livability tactics and mechanisms that can be replicated on local, state and regional levels. This Literature Review examines each trending topic as it relates to the livability principles to enhance the understanding, knowledge and implementation of livability.

Introduction In 2009, the U.S. DOT, the U.S. EPA and the U.S. HUD created the Partnership to coordinate federal housing, transportation, water, and other infrastructure investments to make neighborhoods more prosperous, allow people to live closer to jobs, save household’s time and money, and reduce pollution. The partnership incorporated six principles of livability into federal funding programs, policies, and future legislative proposals. These principles include: 1. Provide more transportation choices; 2. Promote equitable, affordable housing; 3. Enhance economic competitiveness; 4. Support existing communities; 5. Coordinate and leverage federal policies and investment; and 6. Value communities and neighborhoods1. Guided by the goals of the Partnership, the Federal Government has committed significant resources and attention to implementing livability in state and local governments. While livability programs at the state, regional and local levels have existed for more than a decade based on existing needs, the recent federal efforts have led states and localities to investigate the role the federal livability principles could play in their jurisdictions. The multitude of local, state and federal livability initiatives and the lack of widespread local and regional implementation tools led NARC to ask how practitioners and policy officials implement and integrate livability on local and regional levels. NARC reviewed literature covering transportation, local and regional comprehensive and master plans, livability reports, and policy documents. Using the Partnership’s six livability principles as a framework, NARC identified the tactics and mechanisms local governments and their regional planning organizations used to support these principles. Using an Excel spreadsheet to classify the tactics and mechanisms, NARC sorted over 130 documents, and identified reoccurring livability mechanisms and tactics. This literature review first examined the difficulty in creating livability consensus concepts, decoupled livability from sustainability and expanded on trending themes. This review will assist practitioners and policymakers understand how states and localities define, plan and implement livability.


12

Difficulty Building Consensus Concepts: What is Livability? While several challenges exist for states, localities, and their regional planning organizations in this area, the lack of consensus concepts to define, classify or expand on livability appeared to hinder widespread adoption and implementation of these principles. To illustrate the lack of consensus, NARC created a word cloud that visually represented the different livability definitions. This word cloud weighed each word in the 18 scholarly and practitioner livability definitions that NARC reviewed by the number of times the word appeared in each definition. NARC found that most livability definitions included transportation, community, and quality, which indicated that practitioners of livability focus on similar themes, but do not have one consensus definition. Figure 1.1 Livability Word Cloud.

Additionally, NARC conducted a search of scholarly journals in the EbscoHost database, published between January 1, 1976, and October 4, 2011, by the keyword “livability” in the text field and “livable” in the subject term field. NARC conducted this search because of the important role played by researchers in the development of theory. When consensus concepts exist, researchers will test and refine conceptual relationships. The search returned 800 articles within these parameters. NARC then isolated each article based on their nexus to the goals of the Partnership, removing journals that referenced animal or plant health, medicine or book reviews and found 707 journals that discussed the livability concept currently under examination. After grouping the articles by related subject keyword, a clearer picture emerged of the varied ways that the scholarly field understood livability. The ten most common descriptors included: urban planning, cities and towns, policy, housing, urban growth, transportation, social, quality of life, community development, and sustainable development. While livability programs emerged throughout the 1980s and 1990s, in 2009, the Partnership created a definition of livability against which U.S. DOT judged future activities. Secretary of the U.S. DOT, Ray LaHood, defined livability as: …being able to take your kids to school, go to work, see a doctor, drop by the grocery or post office, go out to dinner and a movie, and play with your kids at the park, all without having to get into your car. Livability means building the communities that help Americans live the lives they want to live—whether those communities are urban centers, small towns, or rural areas.1 The Partnership’s livability definition appears similar to other definitions found in NARC’s literature review. Both are clear, directional, focused on localized concerns and appeal to community-level assets to address those concerns.

Common Themes in Practitioner Literature NARC researched and reduced reoccurring livability themes contained in the literature. In doing so, the Association requested information from metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), regional councils of government (COGs), the American Public Works Association (APWA), the International City/County Manager’s Association (ICMA), the National Association of Counties (NACo), the National League of Cities (NLC), the American Public Transportation


13

Association (APTA), and other federal, state and local organizations about their familiarity with, and implementation of, livability mechanisms. In order to minimize researcher bias, NARC asked each organization to self-select the livability documents that best represented their concept of livability. NARC received information that included transportation and master plans, livability reports, and policies that these organizations used to define and implement livability. After identification and reduction, the following livability themes emerged as the most commonly occurring and represent ways in which practitioners achieve their livability goals. They include: • New Urbanism • Livability • Complete Streets • Sustainability • Transit-Oriented Development • Smart Growth • Lifelong Communities • Safe Routes to Schools • Placemaking • Context Sensitive Solutions/Design Livability and Sustainability Throughout the literature reviewed, conceptual overlap emerged between livability and sustainability. While several studies used these concepts interchangeably2, 3, 4, a greater number of resources referred to livability and sustainability as separate and discrete concepts. The following analysis compares and contrasts livability and sustainability. Sustainability Upon review of the literature, the most commonly used sustainability definition was created by the 1987 United Nations Brundtland World Commission on Environment and Development (Bruntland Commission).3, 4, 5 The Brundtland Commission6 defined sustainability as being “concerned about the accelerating deterioration of the human environment and natural resources and the consequences of that deterioration for economic and social development.” Many interpret this definition as meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs. It is also referred to as the triple bottom line concept, because it includes considerations for the economy, the environment and social quality of life.3, 4, 5 The research found many organizations across the country pursuing sustainability strategies. From non-profit organizations to local governments and regional planning organizations, the majority of sustainability efforts reviewed appear to anchor themselves in the Brundtland Commission’s definition. The existence of a consensus definition for sustainability appeared to support practitioners’ policy and program development and facilitate the creation of consistent implementation standards. Livability Based on the literature reviewed, livability emerged as a way to describe tactics that local governments and regional planning organizations used to achieve the kind of sustainability goals described by the Brundtland Commission. However, after the creation of the Partnership’s six livability principles, more organizations and local governments defined livability either similar to or exactly like the Partnership. In the literature published in 2009 or later, even when organizations did not explicitly incorporate the Partnership’s livability principles, several resources still reframed elements of the Partnership’s livability principles. When organizations did not use “livable” to describe their programs, a high degree of similarity between the organization’s goals and that of the Partnership still existed. For example, the City of Highland Park, IL,7 developed both an affordable housing program that promoted the availability of affordable housing without explicitly stating that they so to adhere to the Partnership’s principles. In addition, they adopted a sustainable community strategic plan that supported several of the Partnership’s principles, but defined their efforts in terms of energy, the built environment, mobility, culture and legacy.7 Based on the literature reviewed, while certain concepts existed before the Partnership’s creation, the work of the Partnership appears to have influenced organizations adopting livability plans after its inception. Smart Growth Smart Growth (SG) emerged as a widely adopted tool to implement livability and develop sustainable communities.3, 8, 9, 10 Several organizations adopted SG principles through their development plans and recommendations.11, 12, 13 Additionally, the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC)14 endorsed SG as an effective tool for sustainable development and incorporated SG principles into their neighborhood development guide, Leadership for Energy and Environmental Design Neighborhood Development (LEED ND). The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)15 adopted smarter growth policies to ensure more efficient land use and to serve as a model for green building and development.


14

While other definitions may have come before it, the U.S. EPA and the Smart Growth Network (SGN) developed the most commonly used SG definition in 2001. The U.S. EPA and the SGN defined SG as development that supports sustainability goals and the environment, economy and society. Both organizations envisioned Smart Growth as development that supports sustainability by achieving economic growth, strong neighborhoods and healthy communities. Additionally, the authors created principles that allow developers, as well as a state or local government, to create SG through adherence to these principles. The principles included: • Mix Land Use; • Take Advantage of Compact Building Design; • Create a Range of Housing Opportunities and Choices; • Create Walkable Neighborhoods; • Foster Distinctive, Attractive Communities with a Strong Sense of Place; • Preserve Open Space, Farmland, Natural Beauty and Critical Environmental Areas; • Strengthen and Direct Development Towards Existing Communities; • Provide a Variety of Transportation Choices; • Make Development Decisions Predictable, Fair and Cost Effective; and • Encourage Community and Stakeholder Collaboration in Development Decisions16. Several years after the 2001 publication of the U.S. EPA and SGN definition of Smart Growth, Smart Growth America (SGA)17 developed its definition, which appears to align in large part with the Partnership’s definition of livability. SGA’s definition states that SG, “means building urban, suburban and rural communities with housing and transportation choices near jobs, shops and schools”.17 The evolution of the SG definition suggests that as more communities adopt these principles, greater specificity develops in the field. While initially SG principles explicitly supported sustainability through the implementation of certain types of growth, the more recent definition suggests a distancing from the explicit inclusion of sustainability and frames SG in greater consumer oriented goals. Research showed that SG principles may also be applicable for rural environments.18, 19 Researchers concluded that SG could foster livability through the implementation of the land preservation and curbing sprawling development patterns. Mishkovsky, Dalbey, Bertaina, Read, & McGalliard20 similarly concluded that SG principles in a rural environment could support rural landscapes, help existing places thrive and create great new places. Mishkovsky, Dalbey, Bertaina, Read & McGalliard incorporated SGN’s Smart Growth principles whole cloth, but when they applied SG principles to rural regions, researchers focused heavily on the economic benefits of SG with little mention of how SG principles related to the other aspects of sustainability.20 Based on the literature reviewed, SG appears to support livability in both urban and rural environments, but necessitates an understanding of the type of goals each community seeks to support. Increasing transportation choices, creating housing opportunities and choices, supporting existing communities and valuing communities and neighborhoods have different implications and include different stakeholders depending on whether a practitioner lives in San Diego, California’s central valley, northern Indiana, or rural America. Complete Streets Complete Streets (CS) also appeared as commonly utilized mechanism to achieve livability for all users of all ages.3, 9, 21 Often, researchers used CS to balance the transportation needs of motorized and non-motorized users. As such, research supports CS as a way to support the Partnership’s first principle of increasing transportation options, among others. For example, the National Complete Streets Coalition (NCSC) discussed how CS should appeal to a transportation system users, whether motorized or non-motorized when they said: Complete Streets are streets for everyone. They are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities must be able to safely move along and across a complete street.22 In addition, Burden and Litman explicitly included non-drivers when they proposed that CS create: Multimodal transportation systems that allow the best mode for each trip: walking and cycling for local trips, public transit for travel on congested corridors and for non-drivers, and automobile travel to access dispersed destinations and for carrying loads.21


15

Finally, the Livable Communities Task Force (LCTF)23 concluded that the CS movement: Calls on transportation planners and engineers to build road networks that are welcoming not just to cars, but to pedestrians, bikers, public transportation riders – all of whom save money on gas. Primarily, research shows that CS focused on increasing transportation options to individuals not using a personal automobile as their primary source of transportation. While NCSC stressed that a complete street is designed for more than motorists22; Burden and Litman include a positive role for automobiles in a larger framework designed to create Complete Streets.21 However, the consensus definition for a complete street appears to weigh motorists and non-motorists equally. While cities, counties, states and regional planning organizations are implementing CS across the United States as a way to increase community livability, the goal of CS appears to be the creation and promotion of transportation options that support the non-motorized population. Lifelong Communities According to the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), the number of adults over the age of 65 will constitute up to 22 percent of the nation’s population by 205024. Additionally, Partners for Livable Communities (PLC) and the National Association for Area Agencies on Aging (N4A) began assisting communities in 2004 by developing policies, programs and services to address the challenges of aging in place.25 As a result of increased awareness, many towns and regions are looking for strategies and tactics they can use to prepare for aging communities. As a leading organization representing aging and elderly individuals, AARP uses the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definition of aging in place, “the ability to live in one’s own home and community safely, independently and comfortably, regardless of age, income or ability level”26 as a baseline against which policy that affects seniors is measured. Kochera, Straight, & Guterbock24 suggested that a significant part of livable communities is the ability of residents to age within their community. Further, SGN & ICMA13 concluded that livable communities should be livable for everyone. N4A, PLC and the MetLife Foundation adopted the “all ages” approach to livability planning and implementation when they proposed improvements in housing, planning, zoning, transportation, and health, among other areas to help build livable communities for all ages12. The literature supports an agreement on the need to accommodate an aging population through infrastructure and community service alterations. Further, it is apparent that state agencies and regional planning organizations are fully incorporating that idea into their project development and decision-making processes. While some livability programs are tailored specifically to address the concerns of older residents, others utilized livability tactics such as Smart Growth, Complete Streets and New Urbanism (discussed within this document) to create more livable communities for people of all ages. Safe Routes to School Safe Routes to School (SRTS) also emerged as a way to increase livability by making infrastructure changes that facilitate walking or biking to school.3, 9, 27, 28 According to the National Center for Safe Routes to School (NCSRTS),28 11,163 SRTS programs existed nationwide as of March 31, 2011. Additionally, an increasing number of MPOs and COGs are integrating SRTS requirements into their regional transportation plans to further these goals.29, 30, 31 Across the board, the literature reviewed describes the goals of the national SRTS Program and its affiliates as promoting biking and walking to school for school-aged children.32, 33, 34 SRTS programs appear in a large and growing number of regional transportation plans and are often used as a decision-making tool, in addition to implementation techniques. The literature reviewed shows that often, a COG or MPO will help a local government facilitate the necessary infrastructure changes, but the literature also revealed SRTS in the private-sector through the implementation of walking school-bus activities. Context Sensitive Solutions / Context Sensitive Design NARC found Context Sensitive Solutions/Design (CSS/D) was another common way to further livability goals.3, 9, 21, 35 Ranging from CSS/D street design manuals36 to decision-making frameworks,37 CSS/D is being used in a variety of ways that are highly tailored to implement livability, from engineering to decision-making.


16

In 2005, U.S. DOT’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) defined Context Sensitive Solutions/Design as: collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that involves all stakeholders to develop a transportation facility that fits its physical setting and preserves scenic, aesthetic, historic and environmental resources, while maintaining safety and mobility.38 Similarly, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)39 included the preservation of aesthetic attributes and the maintenance of safety and mobility in their definition, but also expanded on FHWA’s definition. Whereas in FHWA’s definition, the promotion of CSS/D is dependent upon maintaining the safety and mobility of the system, ITE’s definition appears to value all factors equally. In addition to FHWA’s factors, ITE proposed that CSS/D: • meets the needs of users and stakeholders; • are compatible with their setting and preserve scenic, aesthetic, historic and environmental resources; • respect design objectives for safety, efficiency, multimodal mobility, capacity and maintenance; and • integrate community objectives and values relating to compatibility, livability, sense of place, urban design, cost and environmental impacts.39 Additionally, the Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VTPI)35 sought to orient CSS/D with the sustainability triple bottom line concept (economy, environment, society). Whereas the previous two definitions viewed CSS/D as a way to pull community values into the design and solutions process, VTPI’s definition differed in that it maintains that the goal of CSS/D is to support greater sustainability through the incorporation of community values. VTPI stated that CSS/D: Refers to roadway standards and development practices that are flexible and sensitive to community values. CSD allows roadway design decisions to better balance economic, social and environmental objectives.35 CSS/D’s definitions do not appear to be as uniform or widely accepted as those describing other themes like SG. For example, FHWA appears to create a hierarchy of priorities within its definition, whereas ITE does not. However, all CSS/D definitions and examples appear to share a greater consideration for the aesthetics of community level projects. The literature reviewed appears to support CSS/D as a tactic that can support livability by valuing communities and neighborhoods, but also increasing transportation options. While some may view the lack of a strict CSS/D understanding as problematic, it may also offer a highly flexible solution to challenging local issues. New Urbanism New Urbanism (NU) appeared as another common strategy for creating livability within communities.3, 9, 24, 40 According to the Congress for New Urbanism (CNU), NU principles included the creation of livable streets through compact, walkable design, housing choices for all ages and income levels, destinations reachable by walking, bicycling or transit and creating human scaled environments and public spaces.41 Kochera Straight, & Guterbock evoked the image of small towns when they defined NU as, “a movement characterized by a return to mixed residential and retail, walkable streetscapes, and many elements of class ‘small town’ design.”24 Whereas, VTPI concluded that NU includes, “a set of development practices to create more attractive, efficient and livable communities.”40 VTPI’s definition positions the implementation of New Urbanism as a tactic to achieve livable, efficient and attractive communities through development practices. NU design places a heavy emphasis on creating communities where citizens can live, work and play. The challenge for NU communities is anticipating the various needs of each demographic to be included in an NU community. Transit-Oriented Development NARC identified transit-oriented development (TOD) as an often-used tactic for regions and localities to implement livable community strategies.3, 9, 24, 42 Because TOD focuses on mixed-use developments near public transportation, practitioners often discussed TOD in ways that support the Partnership’s principle of increasing transportation options. Surprisingly, despite the nexus of housing options and transportation choices that dominate a TOD discussion, surprisingly little information about affordable housing exists in the literature reviewed. For example, Kochera, Straight, & Guterbock defined transit-oriented development as: Promoting compact mixed-use development around commuter rail stations and other public transit centers can help residents benefit from affordable transportation and access to shopping.24


17

While this definition supports the Partnership’s livability principle that addresses greater transportation choices and supporting existing communities, it does not address affordable housing, only affordable transportation. Similarly, VTPI also defined TOD as: Residential and commercial centers designed to maximize access by transit and nonmotorized transportation, and with other features to encourage transit ridership. A typical TOD has a rail or bus station at its center, surrounded by relatively highdensity development, with progressively lower-density spreading outwards onequarter to one-half mile, which represents pedestrian scale distances.42 Additionally, Federal Transit Administration (FTA) defined TOD as “compact, mixed-use development within walking distance of public transportation.”43 Zimbabwe & Anderson concluded that additional benefits of TOD are increased transit agency revenues, increased land property values, improved access to jobs, reduced cost of building new infrastructure, improved public health and established public places with a sense of place.44 The literature illustrated how several MPOs use TOD as a tactic to increasing livability. According to a report by the U.S. DOT and U.S. HUD,45 TODs increase livability while improving access to transit. Further, they conclude that TOD can reduce transportation costs for working families and mitigate the negative impacts of automobile travel on the environment and the economy. This report focused on “the need for a mix of housing types that are affordable to a range of family incomes in proximity to transit.”45 This report raised important points about tying two livability principles together: increasing available, affordable housing with transit oriented development. There is common concern among the practitioner community regarding the relationship between TODs and affordable housing that necessitates further exploration. Placemaking The literature also supported placemaking as a popular way to implement livability. Many define placemaking as a way to increase the livability in regions, cities, neighborhoods, and public spaces by engaging citizens to participate in the improvement, planning and transformation to their surrounding environment.46 Placemaking supports livability by promoting transportation choices, increasing affordable housing, increasing economic development, and supporting existing communities by creating places where people want to spend discretionary time. Additionally, the literature revealed conceptual overlap between livability and sustainability as they relate to placemaking. Philip Myrick senior vice president of Project for Public Spaces (PPS) concluded that placemaking “is the nexus between sustainability and livability: by making our communities more livable, and more about places, we are also doing the right thing for the planet.”47 However, according to a report by the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) of the TRB, placemaking supports livability implementation by: Assessing the concerns and needs of a local community and then basing improvements to the places within that community on this assessment. Because this approach focuses on “places,” it can be applied to any community, regardless of socioeconomic status, demographic makeup, or even geographic location.48 Markusen & Gadwa49 concluded that placemaking is a way to increase livability by focusing on integrating the Partnership’s livability principles into one specific location. Additionally, Pierson, Cavanaugh, Hagan, Pierson & Mintz50 found that making creative places in which people elect to spend time and valuing existing communities. The TCRP Report 3348 identified placemaking as a way to narrow activities around livability as livability discussions are often very broad. TCRP Report 3348 also added that placemaking could support existing communities through the maintenance and management of public spaces. Markusen & Gadwa49 concluded that placemaking supports livability because it has positive externalities such as an increase in public safety, community identity, affordable housing and reliable transportation choices. Further, they suggested that placemaking contributes to the revitalization by creative initiatives that animate places and spark economic development.


18

Findings Over the past several years, public works Based on the literature reviewed, sustainability, Smart practitioners, local elected officials and their Growth, Complete Streets, Lifelong Communities, local and regional planners have sought Safe Routes to Schools, Context Sensitive Solutions/ to define and promote livable communities Design, New Urbanism, Transit-Oriented Development, nationwide. Based on the literature reviewed, and Placemaking were identified as the most common sustainability, Smart Growth, Complete strategies used to achieve the federal livability principles Streets, Lifelong Communities, Safe Routes when implemented on the local and regional levels. to Schools, Context Sensitive Solutions/ Design, New Urbanism, Transit-Oriented Development, and Placemaking were identified as the most common strategies used to achieve the federal livability principles when implemented on the local and regional levels. Further, the most mature field of literature on tactical applications of livability focused on Smart Growth, Transit-Oriented Development, and Complete Streets, where Placemaking and New Urbanism appeared to have a less mature body of literature. Despite the large amount of available livability literature, several nationally important policy questions remain unanswered. Research found increasing transportation options to be the most popular livability principle addressed in the literature. In both urban and rural communities, Smart Growth, Safe Routes to School, Complete Streets, and Transit-Oriented Development were widely used tools to achieve livability. Safe Routes to School focused on increasing livability through infrastructure changes that facilitated walking or biking to school. Smart Growth also supported the Partnership’s livability principle of increasing transportation options through mixed land use, walkable neighborhoods, preservation of open/ rural landscapes, targeting development toward existing communities and providing transportation choices. Additionally, TODs support increasing transportation options by promoting mixed-use and mixed-income housing that facilitates non-motorized forms of transportation. Often, the availability of transportation options appeared to inform decisions on whether to use other options. While this study did not examine if transportation options could serve as an independent variable against which researchers could test other variables, future research could examine this important relationship. The literature reviewed also supported a strategic, as well as tactical, role for addressing the needs of aging populations within a livability context. Strategically the literature revealed several examples in which the needs of all citizens, regardless of age, were considered when a local government or regional planning organization applied commonly used livability tactics, like Complete Streets policies. However, several examples also supported the use of Complete Streets to operationalize infrastructure changes that were necessary to address a specific infrastructure concern that was intended to benefit older citizens. When the needs of aging citizens were incorporated strategically, the communities were often referred to as Lifelong Communities, whereas communities that incorporated tactical fixes went by various names. Given the anticipated demographic changes that the United States will experience as the baby boomer generation retires, this is an area in which additional research is necessary. The area of greatest opportunity, however, is how non-metropolitan or rural, communities apply livability principles. While several common tactics discussed applicability to an urban setting, little research highlighted the application of these principles and tactics in non-metropolitan regions. Commonly, the literature on nonmetropolitan livability highlighted how regions could densify their land use and direct development toward existing infrastructure in town centers and main streets. This strategy appears to be a dominant theme in the execution of livability principles for non-metropolitan regions. However, additional research that elaborated on the theoretical applications of the Partnership’s six livability principles as well as case studies to elaborate on that theory are necessary.

Conclusion

Though a consensus definition may not yet exist, practitioners appear to use similar livability tactics. While the causal relationship between existing implementation mechanisms and the date when these mechanisms were implemented deserve greater investigation; it may be primarily scholarly in nature because it does appear that regions and localities learned from one another regardless of strategic federal leadership. Similar to the word cloud and key word chart, livability programs appear highly tailored to the local communities that are responsible for implementing them. Despite the differences in how livability is defined either by local, regional, state, or federal partners, the literature reviewed reveals that livability and sustainability continue to suffer from conceptual overlap and while a handful of these themes existed before the creation of the Partnership, they benefitted from the exposure they received because of the Partnership’s efforts.


19

Chapter 2 Implementing the Federal Livability Principles: A Comparative Evaluation The Partnership for Sustainable Communities Federal Livability Principles Provide more transportation options Promote equitable, affordable housing Enhaned economic competitiveness Support existing communities Coordinate and leverage federal policies and investment Value communities and neighborhoods

Des Moines, IA Town Hall Meeting Photo Credit: Des Moines Metropolitan Planning Organization

Atlanta, Georgia Town Center Photo Credit: Atlanta Regional Commission

This Guidebook utilizes case studies and comparative analysis to understand how local governments and regional councils of government implement the Partnership for Sustainable Communities’ federal livability principles. While each livability principle highlights a specific aspect of livability, the National Associaton of Regional Councils (NARC) and its partners found that no one livability project or plan addressed a single principle to the exclusion of another. This section focuses on case study examples collected by NARC to demonstrate how they support each livability principle. It provides tips and suggestions for local officials, planners and implementers on ways to reach interested parties on livability. Chapter Organization Each section in this chapter is organized by livability principle and provides the Partnership’s explanation. The section then summarizes the themes that emerged from the collection of case studies and describes the way in which five case studies addresses that livability principle. Finally, NARC offers a takeaway from each livability principle and recommendations on how to strengthen each livability principle for federal, state, regional and local partners.


20

Provide More Transportation Options Livability is offering regions and localities new and effective ways to conduct joint land use and transportation planning.

Develop safe, reliable, and economical transportation choices to decrease household transportation costs, reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign oil, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and promote public health. NARC and its partners found that providing more transportation choices to be the most common livability principle among the case studies. Many of the examples recognized the important role that transportation assets play in creating more livable communities, though few described their livable communities as a transportation project exclusively. Many regional examples focused on how their regions transportation network connected their communities and enabled the movement of people and goods in a livable context. For example, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) aligned their transportation investments to comply with state greenhouse gas (GHG) laws, as well as community desires. Compass Blueprint is one way that SCAG is implementing their long-range comprehensive plan. The Transportation and Community Development Initiative (TCDI) by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) supports more transportation options based on the regions established livability policy. Locally, several examples demonstrate how localities use transportation improvements to increase their livability. Salt Lake City, UT upgraded their main thoroughfare, a historic highway, to make it more attractive to businesses and citizens. The Village of Oak Park, IL increased parking turnover in their downtown in order to increase the economic benefits to local merchants. Recommendations: Due to transportation’s central role in creating livable communities, federal partners should continue to aggressive examine existing barriers to connecting land use and transportation. Regional councils (RCs) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) are valuable partners in coordinating this effort. Figure 2.1. Transportation Themes in Select Case Studies Project Sponsor

Project Name

East Central Wisconsin Regional Regional Safe Routes in Wisconsin Planning Commission

Project Impact Regional

A regionalized Safe Routes to Schools program that emphasized using biking and walking to enhance livability in the east central Wisconsin region. Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission


Regional

A grant program that uses federal, state and local transportation funds to connect local land use decisions with transportation investments. Village of Oak Park, IL

Oak Park Parking Strategies for Economic Revitalization

Local

The Village increased the ability of retail customers and employees to access the downtown area through changes in local parking policies. Salt Lake City, UT

Life on State Street

Local

Began realignment of a historic highway corridor that will allow for more transportation options now and bus rapid transit in the near future. Atlanta Regional Commission

Livable Centers Initiative

Regional

A regional plan and competitive grant program that focused on reducing air emissions and increasing transportation options for the traveling public with investments in all modes of transportation.


21

Promote Equitable, Affordable Housing Livability is offering regions and localities a framework to consider how their comprehensive plan affects their housing needs. 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. Many of the regional-level case studies addressed equitable, affordable housing by incorporating it as a priority in the policy statements of their plans. SCAG included a statement on housing, but also positioned it with their transportation planning decisions. “In the short term, SCAG’s growth visioning process has found common ground in a preferred vision for growth and has incorporated it into immediate housing allocation and transportation planning decisions. In the long term, the Growth Vision is a framework that will help local jurisdictions address growth management cooperatively and will help coordinate regional land use and transportation planning.”1 The SCAG example is an exception, however, due to the requirements with which regional councils (RCs) in California must comply. RCs in California are required to develop and approve a regional housing needs assessment and regional housing needs plan for its region. An RC must also adopt a methodology for distributing the regional growth number throughout the region (CA DHCD n. pag.).2 Locally, one housing solution found through these case studies came from Cook County, IL. The livability project, Homes for a Changing Cook County, funded staff to coordinate the response to the housing foreclosure crisis among collaborations of municipalities. Through this approach, the collaboratives were able to seize grant funding for this program and help stabilize the property values in two communities. Plans and programs that addressed housing needs for people of all ages was most often referred to as lifelong communities. NARC found that in lifelong communities, policies usually called for the consideration and inclusion of a regions elderly population explicitly, yet few lifelong communities examined the housing needs from a holistic perspective that considered people at every stage of life. The difference between these two perspectives becomes clear when the policies call for one type of infrastructure but not another, i.e. senior centers versus no elementary schools. Recommendations: Regional councils need additional peer examples of best practices in leveraging federal and state transportation and housing investments to create affordable and accessible housing for people in every stage of life. Figure 2.2. Housing Themes in Select Case Studies Project Sponsor

Project Name

Project Impact

Metropolitan Mayors Caucus

Interjurisdictional Housing Collaboratives

Local

A program that helped several collaborations of municipalities in Cook County, IL coordinate their response to recent increases in housing foreclosures. City of Lauderdale Lakes, FL

A Citizens’ Master Plan – Lauderdale Lakes

Local

A master plan that seeks to address, in part, by community concerns about the variety and affordability of the city’s current housing stock. Salt Lake City, UT


Local

Began realignment of a historic highway corridor to allow for residential and retail developments through transitoriented development. Southern California Association of Southern California Compass Blueprint Governments

Regional

A regional plan and grant program that incorporates regional housing needs assessments for the Los Angeles, CA metropolitan region. Village of Kimberly, WI

Kimberly Mill Redevelopment Strategy

Local

A community development plan incorporating new urbanist principles, which include mixed-use residential and commercial real estate uses.


22

Enhance Economic Competitiveness Livability is supporting new ways for localities to plan for the economic development of their cities, counties and regions. 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. Several of the case studies identified this livability principle as the goal underpinning their livability efforts. For example, the Village of Kimberly, WI suffered a loss of tax revenue due to the closure of an industrial facility in their region. In an effort to recoup some of that revenue, the community chose to redevelop some of the abandoned land in a livable fashion. “The Village of Kimberly estimates that if planned and implemented successfully, the mill redevelopment could double the previous assessed value of the property, create a more vibrant and livable community, and recoup some of the lost tax revenue.”3 DVRPC, the West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission (WMSRDC) and the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) created regional plans to enable economic development and worked with their localities to align local policies within the larger regional context created by the regional planning organizations. The Village of Oak Park also sought to increase revenue for their merchants by adopting a parking strategy intended to increase parked vehicle turn over in their downtown. “In their (Village of Oak Park) downtown retail district, the community had a hard time maintain-ing on-street parking vacancies in prime retail locations during business hours.”5 NARC also found examples in which the desire for economic growth did not necessarily eclipse other policy priorities. For example, Genesee County, NY used their smart growth plan to support investment that improved their water quality and expanded service, while gaining new investment in their corporate park. Recommendations: Cities, counties and their regional planning partners should consider how the unique assets in their natural and built environments can support their livability efforts. Federal and state partners should support these efforts on the regional and local levels in their regulatory and programmatic efforts. Figure 2.3. Economic Competitiveness in Select Case Studies Project Sponsor

Project Name

Project Impact



Regional

A grant program that supports projects that result in economic revitalization of target areas. Village of Oak Park, IL

Oak Park Parking Strategies for Economic Revitalization

Local

The Village increased opportunity for employees to access their jobs in the downtown area and for customers to access retail opportunities, thereby increasing revenue generation. Genesee County, NY

Smart Growth Plan

Regional

A county-wide comprehensive plan that utilizes its regionwide smart growth plan to make strategic water quality investments that spurred private economic activity. Atlanta Regional Commission


Regional

A regional plan and competitive grant program that focuses on sustainable economic development in activity or town centers. West Michigan Shoreline Regional The Muskegon Area-Wide Plan Development Commission

Regional

A county-wide comprehensive plan that established a policy framework to help spur economic development in the county.


23

Support Existing Communities Livability is helping communities revitalize existing communities, often core communities. Target federal funding toward existing communities— through strategies like transit oriented, mixed-use development, and land recycling— to increase community revitalization and the efficiency of public works investments and safeguard rural landscapes. NARC found that revitalizing existing communities comprised the majority of examples that supported this livability principle. Some programs, like TCDI and SCAG’s Compass Blueprint, structured their grant selection criteria to support existing communities exclusively. “TCDI grants are intended to support growth or redevelopment in the Core Cities, Developed/Mature Communities, and identified Centers as well as other communities that are socially or economically disadvantaged.”6 “For Compass Blueprint Proposals: Integrates land use and transportation planning, promotes infill, transit-oriented development, and other forms of sustainable development, promotes a sustainable land use mix, including new housing.”7 The community of Lauderdale Lakes, FL expressed concern that as an older suburb, their limited range of housing types might limit its attractiveness to new, younger professionals. One reason that their Citizens’ Master Plan focuses strategically on housing is to promote the community as one of choice by creating housing that appeals to that audience. Some livability plans and projects went beyond the scope of the Partnership’s principles. The Village of Niles, IL and Genesee County, NY supported their existing communities by enhancing their regions water quality. The WMSRDC and the Des Moines Area MPO (DMAMPO) supported their communities with a strategic focus on farmland preservation. Recommendations: Federal and state partners need to support the creation of plans and programs that address the preservation of undeveloped land (farmlands, unincorporated areas) as much as the existing communities to think strategically and comprehensively about how and where growth happens. Figure 2.4. Community Preservation and Revialization Themes in Select Case Studies Project Sponsor

Project Name

Project Impact



Regional

A grant program that focuses its resources exclusively on revitalizing existing communities. Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Tomorrow Plan for Greater Des Moines

Regional

A region-wide comprehensive plan that focuses on community and economic revitalization, among other priorities. City of Lauderdale Lakes, FL


Local

A master plan that redevelops several areas within the city and creates desirable transportation and housing options for its existing and future residents. Southern California Association of Southern California Compass Blueprint Governments

Regional

A regional plan and grant program that funds a variety of activities; including infill, transit-oriented development, and zoning changes, among other activities. West Michigan Shoreline Regional Muskegon Area-Wide Plan Development Commission

Regional

A county-wide comprehensive plan that supported its municipalities, but also focused on the preservation of the region’s farmland.


24

Coordinate and Leverage Federal Policies and Investment Livability is providing valuable guidance and assistance for RCs, MPOs, and their cities and counties in their efforts to connect federal programs. 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. This livability principle was the least often supported strategy found in the case studies. Regional or local plans supported this principle the most often, though the majority of information focused on ways in which the RCs, MPOs or locality leveraged federal funding. For example, DVRPC quantified the amount of local, state and federal money that they have leveraged to support this program in the years since it began. The ARC’s Livable Centers Initiative has conducted their plan for over ten years and was able to do the same. The City of Lauderdale Lakes, FL is a local example, but still created a plan, in which they were able to focus on removing barriers to local collaboration and increasing the accountability through a citizen driven process. Recommendations: Federal partners should create a strategic program to examine the range of federal programs that cities and counties implement and RCs coordinate under the livability framework. This will help the federal, state, regional and local partners create livable communities more quickly and smoothly. Figure 2.5. Preservation and Leveraging Themes in Select Case Studies Project Sponsor

Project Name

Project Impact



Regional

A grant program that leveraged $12.7 million federal, state and local funds to $332 million in public and private funding and creates value for the participating communities. Lauderdale Lakes, FL


Local

A city master plan that incorporates federal, state and regional livability priorities while identifying appropriate public and private funding streams. Salt Lake City, UT


Local

Coordinates public and private transportation and community development investments to revitalize a historic highway corridor. Atlanta Regional Commission

Atlanta’s Livable Centers Initiative

Regional

A regional plan and competitive grant program that leveraged public and private money to support livable center initiatives, with ARC allocating the funding and providing technical assistance to communities on federal, state and local processes. West Michigan Shoreline Regional Muskegon Area-Wide Plan Development Commission

Regional

A county-wide comprehensive plan that used its initial planning investment to leverage environmental preservation, brownfields, water and sewer, as well as habitat restoration partnerships and funding.


25

Value Communities and Neighborhoods Livability supports regional and local efforts to value their communities in qualitative, as well as quantitative, ways.

Enhance the unique characteristics of all communities by investing in healthy, safe, and walkable neighborhoods—rural, urban or suburban. Among the examples in which this livability principle appeared, qualitative benefits of livability planning were approved most often. One challenge to capturing qualitative information is how to analyze and replicate the associated benefits in the livability plan or project. Lifelong Mableton, Mableton, GA, emphasized social connection in their livability planning by increasing opportunities of residents of all ages through farmers markets and other activities. The Village of Niles, IL chose a well understood rain garden concept to apply the community health and aesthetic benefits from im-proved water quality and open, green space in their municipality. SCAG addressed the promotion of healthy, safe and walkable communities through the creation and implementation of its Compass Blueprint. Due the California greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction law, SCAG’s livable communities strategy also takes into consideration these type of impacts. As this type of analysis is California-specific, other regions and localities may quantify this impact differently, based on their unique circumstances and resources. One aspect of this principle underlying every example was the ability of localities to create and maintain connections with one another through regional collaboration. There are several examples in which these livability projects were the catalyst for communities, business partners, citizens, and federal agencies and departments to come together. Recommendations: RCs, metropolitan planning organizations and their localities could help federal partners understand the full range of qualitative and quantitative benefits to planning and implementation livability. Figure 2.6. Valuing Themes in Select Case Studies Project Sponsor

Project Name

Project Impact

Village of Niles, IL

Village of Niles Community Rain Garden

Local

A project that protects the Village’s water quality and engages the community and its natural resources in its creation and maintenance. Salt Lake City, UT


Local

Identified an important historic highway corridor to implement the region’s long-range comprehensive and transportation plans. City of Mableton, GA

Building a Lifelong Community

Local

A plan that created social connection of its residents through a variety of planning, design, programming and community involvement improvements. Southern California Association of Southern California Compass Blueprint Governments

Regional

A regional plan and grant program that promotes the health and welfare of its communities through transportation and land use changes. Village of Kimberly, WI

Kimberly Mill

Local

A community development plan that actively incorporates new urbanist principles of safety and walkability; the first of its kind in the east central Wisconsin region.


26

Chapter 3 Model Policies and Tools Model Policies and Tools Key Plans Policies Codes/Ordinances

Public Engagement

State Street, Salt Lake City, UT Photo Credit: Wasatch Front Regional Council

Tools Performance Evaluation

Grand Trunk Shoreline with Sailboats in the Distance, West Michgian Photo Credit: West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission

City of Chicao, IL Skyline at Night Photo Credit: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

Peer-learning is a crucial way that local governments and their regional planning organizations learn ways to understand and implement the federal livability principles. The National Association of Regional Councils (NARC) and its partners found through the Livabilty Literature Review: A Synthesis of Current Practice that there had been significant dissemination of the federally-defined principles since their inception in 2009 due in large part to peerlearning. The case studies utilized in this report offer successful examples of how local governments and regional councils are implementing livability in their communities. Their experiences, in addition to the other information created over the previous several years, supports a wide-array of model policies, tools, design considerations and zoning changes that also offers a peer-learning opportunity for those looking to create or further their livability work. Chapter Organization This section provides examples of model plans, policies, codes and ordinances, public engagement techniques and tools to support livability and is organized by the most popular themes identified in the Literature Review. As several of the livability tools apply to more than one livability principle, they appear in multiple locations.


27

Smart Growth Smart growth is an urban planning strategy that supports livability by targeting and concentrating development and growth in existing communities to preserve open space and natural resources. Smart Growth means to develop compact, mixed-use, affordable housing choices that are walkable, bikeable and have an ease of access to transit.

Genesee County, NY – Smart Growth plan: http://bit.ly/11SaFjD West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission (WMSRDC) – Muskegon Area-Wide Plan: http://bit.ly/ZvQn8c Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) – livable communities plan: http://1.usa.gov/111YCu8 American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) – Livable Communities Empowerment Toolkit: http://bit.ly/Zt0avY Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) – Livable Centers Initiative (LCI) Resources: http://bit.ly/XdZWMD Southern New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission (SNHRPC) – New Hampshire Livable Walkable Communities Toolkit: http://bit.ly/111YRp1 CMAP – local policies and ordinances: http://1.usa.gov/10YM89l Local Government Commission – A Policymaker’s Guide to Infill Development: http://bit.ly/Zt0fjr ARC – LCI Resources: http://bit.ly/XdZWMD Cobb County, GA – Mableton Smart Code: http://1.usa.gov/Z3NifE Muskegon County, MI – Muskegon County Farmland Development Rights Ordinance: http://bit.ly/Z66vxq CMAP – local policies and ordinances: http://1.usa.gov/10YM89l U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Rural Planning Zoning and Development Codes: http://1.usa.gov/14kV1Pn ARC’s LCI – LCI Interactive Map: http://bit.ly/Z9bqUY Southern California Association of Government (SCAG) – Compass Blueprint Recognition Awards: http://bit.ly/16oYiNf Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) – Transportation and Community Development Initiative (TCDI) webmap: http://bit.ly/128Gh0X

ARC – 2011 LCI Implementation Report: http://bit.ly/10z7ya3 SCAG Compass Blueprint – SCAG application for Compass Blueprint projects: http://bit.ly/12111sT SCAG Compass Blueprint – demonstration project evaluation criteria: http://bit.ly/Z4teKc SCAG Compass Blueprint – Toolbox Tuesdays Training: http://bit.ly/16g2ACb U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) – Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem Solving: http://1.usa.gov/Z07Xbw DVRPC – 2012 TCDI program guide: http://bit.ly/ZytP6Q City of Batavia, NY – inter-municipal facilitating agreements: http://bit.ly/1044ViG NARC – Green Infrastructure Assessment Survey Overview: http://bit.ly/YC25Ua 495/MetroWest Partnership – Green Infrastructure Toolkit: http://bit.ly/156sOuL U.S. EPA – Guide to Sustainable Transportation Performance Measures: http://1.usa.gov/10YPn0y State of Maryland – Maryland Smart Growth indicators project: http://bit.ly/119MiKL.html U.S. EPA – Smart Growth Scorecards: http://1.usa.gov/ZoqYyC National Association of Regional Councils’ Creating Livable Communities: An Implementation Guidebook

28

Complete Streets Complete Streets support livability by providing access to safe, reliable and economic mobility options for a wide range of mobility needs and may utilize tactics like adding sidewalks, bike lanes, bus lanes, crosswalks or other features. The ultimate goal of Complete Streets is to make streets safer for all types of users (pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders) regardless of age and ability. Life on State Street – Wasatch Choice for 2040 Vision, growth principles and toolbox: http://bit.ly/XXgVUa U.S. DOJ – Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem Solving: http://1.usa.gov/Z07Xbw WMSRDC – Muskegon Area-Wide Plan: http://bit.ly/ZvQn8c CMAP – livable communities plan: http://1.usa.gov/111YCu8 ARC – LCI Resources: http://bit.ly/XdZWMD SNHRPC and HNH Foundation – New Hampshire Livable Walkable Communities Toolkit: http://bit.ly/111YRp1 CMAP – local policies and ordinances: http://1.usa.gov/10YM89l Smart Growth America – The Best Complete Streets Policies of 2012: http://bit.ly/10YPNnB American Planning Association – Complete Streets: Best Policy and Implementation Practices: http://bit.ly/ZThFFR Change Lab Solutions – Model Laws and Resolutions: Complete Streets: http://bit.ly/156tjoL NPlan – Model Local Ordinance on Complete Streets: http://bit.ly/1121Nlv ARC – LCI Resources: http://bit.ly/XdZWMD CMAP – local policies and ordinances: http://1.usa.gov/10YM89l Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission – rural, suburban and urban Complete Streets policies: http://bit.ly/XyMfYG SCAG – Compass Blueprint Recognition Awards: http://bit.ly/128XVS5 DVRPC – TCDI webmap: http://bit.ly/128Gh0X Genesee Transportation Commission (GTC) – Thriving Communities Toolkit: http://bit.ly/Zt2V0l ARC’s LCI – LCI Interactive Map: http://bit.ly/Z9bqUY SCAG Compass Blueprint – SCAG application for Compass Blueprint projects: http://bit.ly/16oYiNf SCAG Compass Blueprint – demonstration project evaluation criteria: http://bit.ly/Z4teKc SCAG Compass Blueprint – Toolbox Tuesdays Training: http://bit.ly/16g2ACb DVRPC – 2012 TCDI program guide: http://bit.ly/ZytP6Q ARC and Lifelong Mableton – Walking Mableton Through Local Eyes: http://bit.ly/ZXlYmR GTC - Thriving Livable Communities Toolkit: http://bit.ly/Zt2V0l Parsons Brinckerhoff - Road Diet Handbook: Setting Trends for Livable Communities: Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) – Complete Streets guide: http://bit.ly/ZorDjl Capitol Region Council of Governments (CRCOG) – Livable Communities Tools for Communities and Citizens: http://bit.ly/114WumX The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) – ITE Journal. Multimodal and Complete Streets Performance Measures in Pasadena, California. Jan 2012: http://bit.ly/16UFl2X University of California Transportation Centers – Performance Measures for Complete, Green Streets: A Proposal for Urban Arterials in California. Jul 2012: http://bit.ly/16UFsvl MAG – Complete Streets guide: http://bit.ly/ZorDjl


29

Lifelong Communities Lifelong Communities support livability by allowing people to live and remain active in a community throughout their life, regardless of age or income level. Features of lifelong communities include affordable housing, safe and accessible transportation options, and easy access to services. Smart Growth, New Urbanism, Transit-Oriented Development and Complete Streets are the most often employed tactics to achieve a lifelong community. WMSRDC – Muskegon Area-Wide Plan: http://bit.ly/ZvQn8c ARC – Lifelong Communities: A Regional Guide to Growth and Longevity: http://bit.ly/Yl2YvX CMAP – livable communities plan: http://1.usa.gov/111YCu8 AARP – Livable Communities Empowerment Toolkit: http://bit.ly/Zt0avY CMAP, Metropolitan Mayors Caucus (MMC) and Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC) – Supporting and Sustaining Interjurisdictional Collaboration for Housing and Community Development: http://bit. ly/1101zhm ARC – LCI Resources: http://bit.ly/XdZWMD CMAP – local policies and ordinances: http://1.usa.gov/10YM89l Arrowhead Regional Development Commission (ARDC) – Communities for a Lifetime: http://bit.ly/Zosh0s CMAP, MMC and MPC – Supporting and Sustaining Interjurisdictional Collaboration for Housing and Community Development: http://bit.ly/1101zhm ARC – LCI Resources: http://bit.ly/XdZWMD Cobb County, GA - Mableton Smart Code: http://1.usa.gov/Z3NifE CMAP - local policies and ordinances: http://1.usa.gov/10YM89l ARC’s LCI – LCI Interactive Map: http://bit.ly/Z9bqUY ARC – Lifelong Communities Education: http://bit.ly/1159n0b Philadelphia Corporation for Aging – GenPhilly: http://bit.ly/115a75C ARC – 2011 LCI Implementation Report: http://bit.ly/10z7ya3 U.S. DOJ – Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem Solving: http://1.usa.gov/Z07Xbw Tomlinson Graham Group – Mableton Arts Study: http://1.usa.gov/ZXlPzS ARC and Lifelong Mableton – Walking Mableton Through Local Eyes: http://bit.ly/ZXlYmR Arrowhead Regional Development Commission (ARDC) – Communities for a Lifetime: http://bit.ly/Zosh0s Woodstock Institute – Regional Home Ownership Preservation Initiative: http://bit.ly/ZpvqMn Neighborhood Works America – Aging in Place Resources: http://bit.ly/175AVnX Coastal Regional Commission – Communities for a Lifetime: Lifelong Communities: http://bit.ly/1123nUo Corporation for National & Community Service – 2013 National Performance Measures Instructions (Healthy Futures Focus Area): http://bit.ly/16URhSg York County Area Agency on Aging – Four Year Plan of the York County Area Agency on Aging: http://bit.ly/XJZlVo


30

Safe Routes to School Safe Routes to School (SRTS) support livability by creating more safe transportation options for children to travel to school and support the existing community. Often, these programs promote and encourage walking and biking to school and involve parents, schools and local leaders as primary coordinators for the SRTS effort.

East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (ECWRPC) – East Central Wisconsin Regional Safe Routes to School Strategic Plan: http://bit.ly/16rMs2x Wisconsin Department of Transportation (DOT) – Safe Routes to School toolkit: http://1.usa.gov/ZostMY WMSRDC – Muskegon Area-Wide Plan: http://bit.ly/ZvQn8c CMAP – livable communities plan: http://1.usa.gov/111YCu8

SRTS National Partnership – Safe Routes to School Local Policy Guide: http://bit.ly/15blLkP ARC – LCI Resources: http://bit.ly/XdZWMD SNHRPC and HNH Foundation – New Hampshire Livable Walkable Communities Toolkit: http://bit.ly/111YRp1 CMAP - Local Policies and Ordinances: http://1.usa.gov/10YM89l ARC – LCI Resources: http://bit.ly/XdZWMD Cobb County, GA – Mableton Smart Code: http://1.usa.gov/Z3NifE CMAP – local policies and ordinances: http://1.usa.gov/10YM89l ARC’s LCI - LCI Interactive Map: http://bit.ly/Z9bqUY Wisconsin DOT - Safe Routes to School toolkit: http://1.usa.gov/ZostMY Wisconsin DOT - kids traffic safety website: http://1.usa.gov/ZosHE0 ARC – 2011 LCI Implementation Report: http://bit.ly/10z7ya3 Wisconsin DOT – Safe Routes to School toolkit: http://1.usa.gov/ZostMY ARC and Lifelong Mableton – Walking Mableton Through Local Eyes: http://bit.ly/ZXlYmR GTC – Thriving Communities Toolkit: http://bit.ly/Zt2V0l Parsons Brinckerhoff – Road Diet Handbook: Setting Trends for Livable Communities: http://bit.ly/YBT4e1 CRCOG – Livable Communities Tools for Communities and Citizens: http://bit.ly/114WumX Wisconsin DOT - Safe Routes to School toolkit: http://1.usa.gov/ZostMY Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center and the National Center for Safe Routes to School (NCSRTS) of the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center – Evaluation Guide for Community Safe Routes to School Programs: http://bit.ly/Yl3Hxd NCSRTS – Evaluation: Student In-Class Travel Tally: http://bit.ly/12X2ItZ NCSRTS – Evaluation: Parent Survey: http://bit.ly/126vndq


31

Context Sensitive Solutions Context Sensitive Solutions/Design (CSS/D) support livability by improving existing conditions, but also preserving and enhancing the existing community. It is a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach which involves all relevant stakeholders in the process. This approach seeks to develop a transportation facility that preserves the scenic, aesthetic, historic and environmental attributes of a community, while maintaining safety and mobility.

Life on State Street – Wasatch Choice for 2040 Vision, growth principles and toolbox: http://bit.ly/XXgVUa Genesee County, NY – Smart Growth plan: http://bit.ly/11SaFjD WMSRDC – Muskegon Area-Wide Plan: http://bit.ly/ZvQn8c CMAP – livable communities plan: http://1.usa.gov/111YCu8 ARC – LCI Resources: http://bit.ly/XdZWMD CMAP – local policies and ordinances: http://1.usa.gov/10YM89l SNHRPC and HNH Foundation – New Hampshire Livable Walkable Communities Toolkit: http://bit.ly/111YRp1 Local Government Commission – A Policymaker’s Guide to Infill Development: http://bit.ly/Zt0fjr Florida DOT – traditional neighborhood development: http://bit.ly/17xPPX9 ARC – LCI Resources: http://bit.ly/XdZWMD Muskegon County, MI – Muskegon County Farmland Development Rights Ordinance: http://bit.ly/Z66vxq CMAP – local policies and ordinances: http://1.usa.gov/10YM89l ARC’s LCI – LCI Interactive Map: http://bit.ly/Z9bqUY DVRPC – TCDI webmap: http://bit.ly/128Gh0X Idaho DOT – Context Sensitive Solutions Guide: http://bit.ly/YTrwQi U.S. DOT, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) – Context Sensitive Solutions Champions program: http://bit.ly/11247sK GreenRoads Foundation – GreenRoads rating tool: http://bit.ly/119QhHe ARC – 2011 LCI Implementation Report: http://bit.ly/10z7ya3 U.S. DOJ – Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem Solving: http://1.usa.gov/Z07Xbw DVRPC – 2012 TCDI program guide: http://bit.ly/ZytP6Q City of Batavia, NY – inter-municipal facilitating agreements: http://bit.ly/1044ViG CMAP and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency – Guidance for Developing Watershed Action Plans in Illinois: http://1.usa.gov/149p3EM Parsons Brinckerhoff – Road Diet Handbook: Setting Trends for Livable Communities: http://bit.ly/YBT4e1 495/MetroWest Partnership – Green Infrastructure Toolkit: http://bit.ly/156sOuL Idaho DOT – Context Sensitive Solutions Guide: http://bit.ly/YTrwQi Idaho DOT – Context Sensitive Solutions Guide: http://bit.ly/YTrwQi Transportation Research Board (TRB) – Performance Measures for Context Sensitive Solutions A Guidebook for State DOTs: http://bit.ly/114YnQu U.S. DOT, FHWA – Evaluation: CSS Performance Measures: http://bit.ly/Zt54ZY


32

New Urbanism New Urbanism (NU) supports livability by creating more transportation, housing and job options in communities and neighborhoods. New Urbanism relies on an urban design development pattern to create development patterns that support walking and driving in a compact, mixed-use development. In addition to housing; new urbanist communities include schools, parks, stores and other destinations can be reached by driving, walking, biking or transit.

WMSRDC – Muskegon Area-Wide Plan: http://bit.ly/ZvQn8c CMAP – livable communities plan: http://1.usa.gov/111YCu8 Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU) – New Urbanism & Comprehensive Plans Progress Report: http://bit.ly/ZTj3rU ARC – LCI Resources: http://bit.ly/XdZWMD SNHRPC and HNH Foundation – New Hampshire Livable Walkable Communities Toolkit: http://bit.ly/111YRp1 CMAP – local policies and ordinances: http://1.usa.gov/10YM89l Local Government Commission – A Policymaker’s Guide to Infill Development: http://bit.ly/Zt0fjr ARC – LCI Resources: http://bit.ly/XdZWMD Cobb County, GA – Mableton Smart Code: http://1.usa.gov/Z3NifE CMAP – local policies and ordinances: http://1.usa.gov/10YM89l ARC’s LCI – LCI Interactive Map: http://bit.ly/Z9bqUY DVRPC – TCDI Webmap: http://bit.ly/128Gh0X CNU – CNU YouTube Channel: http://bit.ly/14kYhdI National League of Cities – New Urbanism Checklist: http://bit.ly/1761rxA ARC – 2011 LCI Implementation Report: http://bit.ly/10z7ya3 U.S. DOJ – Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Designin Problem Solving: http://1.usa.gov/Z07Xbw Tomlinson Graham Group – Mableton Arts Study: http://1.usa.gov/ZXlPzS 495/MetroWest Partnership – Green Infrastructure Toolkit: http://bit.ly/156sOuL ARDC – Communities for a Lifetime: http://bit.ly/Zosh0s CRCOG – Livable Communities Tools for Communities and Citizens: http://bit.ly/114WumX Queens University – Executive Summary: Critical Evaluation of Two New Urbanist Communities in Calgary: A Comparison of McKenzie Towne and Garrison Woods: http://bit.ly/XJSb3p Journal of the American Planning Association – Measuring Urban Form. Spring 2004: http://bit.ly/14kYmxU TRB – Measuring Network Connectivity for Bicycling and Walking. J. Dill. 2004: http://bit.ly/12X42gx


33

Transit-Oriented Development Transit-oriented developments (TODs) support livability through increased transportation options and enhanced economic development opportunities for communities. TODs exist in more densely developed residential and commercial centers with access to affordable transportation options such as rail, bus or other choices. Traditionally, TODs have been created on a pedestrian scale, promoted transit use, walking and biking.

Life on State Street – Wasatch Choice for 2040 Vision, growth principles and toolbox: http://bit.ly/XXgVUa WMSRDC – Muskegon Area-Wide Plan: http://bit.ly/ZvQn8c CMAP – livable communities plan: http://1.usa.gov/111YCu8 ARDC – Communities for a Lifetime: http://bit.ly/Zosh0s ARC – LCI Resources: http://bit.ly/XdZWMD Business and Civic Council (BCC) of Oak Park, IL – BCC Parking Position: http://bit.ly/YWdFnP CMAP – local policies and ordinances: http://1.usa.gov/10YM89l CMAP, MMC and MPM – Supporting and Sustaining Interjurisdictional Collaboration for Housing and Community Development: http://bit.ly/1101zhm ARC – LCI Resources: http://bit.ly/XdZWMD CMAP – local policies and ordinances: http://1.usa.gov/10YM89l ARC’s LCI – LCI Interactive Map: http://bit.ly/Z9bqUY SCAG – Compass Blueprint Recognition Awards: http://bit.ly/128XVS5 DVRPC –TCDI webmap: http://bit.ly/128Gh0X ARC – 2011 LCI Implementation Report: http://bit.ly/10z7ya3 SCAG’s Compass Blueprint – SCAG application for Compass Blueprint projects: http://bit.ly/16oYiNf SCAG’s Compass Blueprint – demonstration project evaluation criteria: http://bit.ly/Z4teKc SCAG’s Compass Blueprint – Toolbox Tuesdays Training: http://bit.ly/16g2ACb DVRPC – 2012 TCDI program guide: http://bit.ly/ZytP6Q CMAP – Parking Strategies to Support Livable Communities: http://1.usa.gov/YExb8g GTC – Thriving Communities Toolkit: http://bit.ly/Zt2V0l Woodstock Institute – Regional Home Ownership Preservation Initiative: http://bit.ly/ZpvqMn Center for Transit Oriented Development – Performance-Based TOD Typology Guidebook: http://bit.ly/17xQoAr Futurewise, GGLO and Transportation Choices Coalition – Transit-oriented communities: A Blueprint for Washington State: http://bit.ly/ZotCUW Center for Transit Oriented Development – Tools for Performance-Based TOD: http://bit.ly/119Rtuh


34

Placemaking Placemaking supports livability by valuing the unique characteristics in communities and engaging its residents to build social capital. Often, placemaking includes tactics that revitalize and re-tool existing civic spaces. Examples of placemaking could include utilizing an existing park with live music or other events, local art installations, or creating safe, enjoyable spaces for people to sit and relax.

Life on State Street – Wasatch Choice for 2040 Vision, growth principles and toolbox: http://bit.ly/XXgVUa City of Tallahassee, FL – Placemaking: http://bit.ly/14kYH3D WMSRDC – Muskegon Area-Wide Plan: http://bit.ly/ZvQn8c CMAP – livable communities plan: http://1.usa.gov/111YCu8 ARC – LCI Resources: http://bit.ly/XdZWMD SNHRPC and HNH Foundation – New Hampshire Livable Walkable Communities Toolkit: http://bit.ly/111YRp1 CMAP – local policies and ordinances: http://1.usa.gov/10YM89l Local Government Commission – A Policymaker’s Guide to Infill Development: http://bit.ly/Zt0fjr ARC – LCI Resources: http://bit.ly/XdZWMD Cobb County, GA – Mableton Smart Code: http://1.usa.gov/Z3NifE Muskegon County, MI – Muskegon County Farmland Development Rights Ordinance: http://bit.ly/Z66vxq CMAP – local policies and ordinances: http://1.usa.gov/10YM89l ARC’s LCI – LCI Interactive Map: http://bit.ly/Z9bqUY City of Tallahassee, FL – Midtown Action Plan: http://bit.ly/12X4N9q MPC – Placemaking Chicago: http://bit.ly/16UUIbF City of Tallahassee, FL – Midtown Action Plan: http://bit.ly/12X4N9q ARC – 2011 LCI Implementation Report: http://bit.ly/10z7ya3 U.S. DOJ – Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem Solving: http://1.usa.gov/Z07Xbw Tomlinson Graham Group – Mableton Arts Study: http://1.usa.gov/ZXlPzS CMAP and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency – Guidance for Developing Watershed Action Plans in Illinois: http://1.usa.gov/149p3EM 495/MetroWest Partnership – Green Infrastructure Toolkit: http://bit.ly/156sOuL Woodstock Institute – Regional Home Ownership Preservation Initiative: http://bit.ly/ZpvqMn Toronto Artscape, Inc. – Approaches to Creative Placemaking: http://bit.ly/15bn9E9 Placemaking Chicago – Implementing Your Plan (steps 9-11): http://bit.ly/1125ho9 National Endowment for the Arts – Creative Placemaking Executive Summary: http://1.usa.gov/1125jMB


35

Chapter 4 Communicating Livability Themes: A Strategic Approach

Los Angeles, California Commuter Express Photo Credit: Southern California Association of Governments

City of Lauderdale Lakes Welcome Sign Photo Credit: South Florida Regional Planning Council

Figure 4.1. One example of a communication model.

Communicating the value of livability is as important to the successful implementation of livable communities as planning. As policy officials, planners and builders of the nation’s cities, counties and regions, communicating with a variety of interested parties is a cornerstone of practice. As the Literature Review in this report outlined the most popular ways that livability is understood, the communication section includes different ways to communicate these popular livability themes. Chapter Organization This section walks practitioners through the process to create an effective message that supports their livability work and provides an example of how others have communicated these themes. It also provides tips and suggestions for local officials, planners and implementers on ways to reach interested parties on livability.


36

Smart Growth Smart growth is an urban planning strategy that supports livability by targeting and concentrating development and growth in existing communities to preserve open space and natural resources. Smart growth means to develop compact, mixed-use, affordable housing choices that are walkable, bikeable and have an ease of access to transit.

Goal: Target and concentrate development in existing communities to preserve open space and natural resources Objectives: • Promote city code changes to support smart growth in 4 communities over 1 year. • Engage small and local businesses to occupy retail spaces in targeted areas. • Promote awareness of businesses along transit corridors and near housing. Potential Audiences: • Elected officials • City/county managers • Schools/universities • Business community/Chamber • Citizen action groups • Minority groups • Traffic/transportation professionals/planners • Transit agency • Developers/homebuilders • Neighborhood organizations • Aging community • Environmental community • Affordable housing advocates

Photo Credit: Creative Commons

• • • •

Homeowners Bicycling community EJ community Housing agencies

Strategies: Ask how you will connect the audiences you have selected with your objectives. Tactics: Ask what kind of activities can you engage in to execute your strategies. Sample Message: My small business needs high foot traffic and customers that I can build a relationship and repeat business with; smart growth gives me the economic opportunity I need to succeed.

Successful Example: Connections 2040 Choices and Voices

Figure 4.2. DVRPC Smart Growth Interactive Website.

http://www.dvrpc.org/asp/ChoicesAndVoices/ Key Qualities: Web-based communication Goal: Develop support for smart growth style growth and development patterns. Objective: Promote awareness of the choices the region can make and how it will impact future growth. Audience: community and business groups Strategy: web-based interactive game, neutral colors, real-time dash board updates


37

Complete Streets Complete Streets support livability by providing access to safe, reliable and economic mobility options for a wide range of mobility needs and may utilize tactics like adding sidewalks, bike lanes, bus lanes, crosswalks or other features. The ultimate goal of Complete Streets are to make streets safer for all types of users (pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders) regardless of age and ability.

Goal:

Make your streets safer for all types of users.

Objectives: • Support expansion of bicycle lanes by X percentage over X years. • Integrate intelligent transportation solutions to inform motorists driving decisions. • Engage bicycle and pedestrian community to promote helmet use. Potential Audiences: • Elected officials • School districts • Healthcare sector • Traffic/transportation engineers and planners • Community Developers • Neighborhood organizations • Aging community • Environmental justice community • Environmental community • Water/sewage • Arts • Merchant groups

Photo Credit: Valerie Hermanson

Strategies: Ask how you will connect the audiences you have selected with your objectives. Tactics: Ask what kind of activities can you engage in to execute your strategies. Sample Message: The way people are getting around is changing with walking, biking and transit use growing in popularity. We need to design our streets to better serve all users.

Successful Example: New York Department of Transportation’s Curbside Haiku http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/curbside-haiku-sample.pdf Key Qualities: Print-based ad campaign (with web option) Figure 4.3. New York City DOT Curbside Haiku Marketing Promotion Goal: Create safer cyclist and pedestrian behavior in line with the NYC bike lane expansions. Objective: Decrease incidents of human and automobile accidents in targeted areas. Audience: drivers, cyclists and pedestrians Strategy: visually appealing, unexpected use of poetry in a public space, uses social media to further conversation


38

Lifelong Communities Lifelong communities support livability by allowing people to live and remain active in a community throughout their life, regardless of age or income level. Features of lifelong communities include affordable housing, safe and accessible transportation options, and easy access to services. Smart growth, new urbanism, transit-oriented development and complete streets are the most often employed tactics to achieve a lifelong community. Goal: Ensure all residents the opportunity to live and remain active in a community throughout their life, regardless of age or income. Objectives: • Connect with five housing developers to promote the goals of the lifelong community in new or infil developments. • Educate senior on safe and accessible transportation options. • Align city, county or regional services to promote easy access. Potential Audiences: • Elected officials • Citizen action groups • Healthcare sector • Traffic/transportation professionals • Minority community • Neighborhood organizations

• • • • • •

Photo Credit: Dan Burden, Walkable & Livable Communities Institute, via AARP

Homebuilders Aging community/senior services Transit agency Housing agencies Homeowners Churches

Strategies: Ask how you will connect the audiences you have selected with your objectives. Tactics: Ask what kind of activities can you engage in to execute your strategies. Sample Message: It is important to me to live in a community that supports my needs but also my children and my parents alike.

Successful Example: Atlanta Regional Commission’s Advertising http://documents.atlantaregional.com/ llc/atlanta_magazine-final.pdf Key Qualities: Print-based communication Goal: Rent apartments to older individuals Objective: Promote the product as part of a full and active lifestyle Audience: seniors Strategy: uses complementary imagery, ad placement in targeted magazine, clear call to action

Figure 4.4. Lifelong Communities Advertising Placement.


39

Safe Routes to School Safe Routes to School (SRTS) support livability by creating more safe transportation options for children to travel to school and support the existing community. Often, these programs promote and encourage walking and biking to school and involve parents, schools and local leaders as primary coordinators for the SRTS effort.

Goal: Create safe transportation options for children to travel to and from school Objectives: • Promote walking school buses at 10 elementary schools within 1 year. • Reach 10% of your city/county/region’s “mommy bloggers” to promote existing SRTS programs. • Institute an awards program for area schoolchildren that rewards good safety practice. Potential Audiences: • Schools/universities • Parent groups • Local elected officials • Citizen action groups • Healthcare/hospitals • Traffic/transportation professionals • Media • Neighborhood organizations • Merchant groups/Chamber • Aging community • Environmental Justice Communities • Youth Strategies: Ask how you will connect the audiences you have selected with your objectives. Tactics: Ask what kind of activities can you engage in to execute your strategies. Sample Message: Children should have safe and active ways to get to and from school each day.

Photo Credit: http://santaclaritacitybriefs.com/2010/04/01/earth-day-tofeature-tips-on-safe-routes-to-school/

Successful Example: Safe Routes to School Key Qualities: Print-based communication Goal: Increases rates of biking and walking to school among children. Objective: Create awareness of safe commuting options for children. Audience: children and parents Strategy: colorful imagery, simple message, clear call to action

Figure 4.5. Safe Routes to School Advertisement


40

Context Sensitive Solutions Context Sensitive Solutions/Design (CSS/D) support livability by improving existing conditions, but also preserving and enhancing the existing community. It is a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach which involves all relevant stakeholders in the process. This approach seeks to develop a transportation facility that preserves the scenic, aesthetic, historic and environmental attributes of a community, while maintaining safety and mobility. Goal: Improve existing transportation conditions, but also preserve and enhance the existing community. Objectives: • Increase regional beautification projects by 20% over the next two years. • Enhance the aesthetic appeal of your community, while maintaining safety and mobility. • Engage the local/regional historical society to promote the integration of historic assets into new transportation projects. Potential Audiences: • Elected officials • School districts • Business community/chamber of commerce • Traffic professionals • Economic development districts • Developers • Media • Neighborhood organizations • Aging community • Environmental justice communities

Photo Credit: Project for Public Spaces Image Collection

• • • •

Watershed and soil/conservation Landowners Technical advisory committee Water/sewer

Strategies: Ask how you will connect the audiences you have selected with your objectives. Tactics: Ask what kind of activities can you engage in to execute your strategies. Sample Message: Our citizens increasingly want to live and raise families in places that respect our past and are rich in environmental and cultural opportunities. Context Sensitive Design helps get us there.

Successful Example: CSS Champions http://contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/css-champions/ Key Qualities: Web-based communication Goal: Promote the adoption of CSS principles in transportation projects nationwide. Objective: Create an awards program to highlight positive examples of CSS implementation and promote the creation of other examples. Audience: cities, counties, transportation professionals Strategy: branded campaign, communicates value proposition clearly and succinctly, uses neutral colors Figure 4.6. CSS Champions Symbol.


41

New Urbanism New Urbanism (NU) supports livability by creating more transportation, housing and job options in communities and neighborhoods. New Urbanism relies on an urban design development pattern to create development patterns that support walking and driving in a compact, mixed-use development. In addition to housing; new urbanist communities include schools, parks, stores and other destinations can be reached by driving, walking, biking or transit. Goal: Adopt compact, mixed-use development though the use of urban design and development principles. Objectives: • Educate key audiences on the transportation connections between jobs and housing. • Connect top 5 employers in the city/county/ region on employee transit benefits. • Work with housing developers to promote home options in new urbanist developments. Potential Audiences: • School districts • Business community/Chamber/merchant groups • Traffic/transportation professionals • Transit agency • Bicycling community • Environmental justice community • Developers • Lenders • Aging community • Neighborhood organizations

Photo Credit: http://authenticplaces.wordpress.com/category/urbanists/

• • • • •

Housing agencies Civic organizations Environment (sewer and water) Homeowners Land conservancies

Strategies: Ask how you will connect the audiences you have selected with your objectives. Tactics: Ask what kind of activities can you engage in to execute your strategies. Sample Message: I want to live in a place with a lot of outdoor options that I can easily walk or drive to and aren’t far from my house.

Successful Example: Mueller Website http://www.muelleraustin.com/commercial/overview Key Qualities: Web-based communication Goal: Increase occupancy in Mueller’s new urbanist commercial centers. Objective: Create awareness of the available commercial properties Audience: companies who identify these qualities as beneficial for their company Strategy: visuals support target new urbanist audience, text stresses “total package” appeal, clear call to actions Figure 4.7. Mueller New Urbanism Website Advertisement.


42

Transit-Oriented Development Transit-oriented developments (TODs) support livability through increased transportation options and enhanced economic development opportunities for communities. TODs exist in more densely developed residential and commercial centers with access to affordable transportation options such as rail, bus or other choices. Traditionally, TODs have been created on a pedestrian scale, promoted transit use, walking and biking. Goal: Increase transportation options and enhance economic development opportunities for communities. Objectives: • Conduct an information campaign about the ease and reliability of your targeted transit system. • Engage community transit activists to identify more desirable and efficient routes for transit expansion or to identify efficiency. • Connect with targeted local merchants to identify advertising opportunities along key transit lines. Potential Audiences: • Schools/universities • Business community • Healthcare/hospitals • Chamber/merchant groups • Traffic/transportation professionals • Transit agency • Minority community

Photo Credit: Creative Commons

• • • • • • •

Environmental Justice Neighborhood organizations Home builders Civic organizations Aging community Homeowners Land conservancies

Strategies: Ask how you will connect the audiences you have selected with your objectives. Tactics: Ask what kind of activities can you engage in to execute your strategies. Sample Message: Many recent college graduates and young families are preferring to life a car-free lifestyle. Transit-oriented development is an opportunity for us to meet their need, support local businesses and protect the environment at the same time.

Successful Example: DC Streetcar on H Street

Figure 4.8. Transit-Oriented Development on H Street.

http://hstreet.org/live/dc-streetcar/ Key Qualities: Web-based communication Goal: Create and sustain support for transit oriented developments along the revitalized H St corridor Objective: Promote awareness of businesses along this corridor. Audience: businesses, developers and potential residents Strategy: visually appealing, integrated twitter account, twitter account focused on businesses


43

Placemaking Placemaking supports livability by valuing the unique characteristics in communities and engaging its residents to build social capital. Often, placemaking includes tactics that revitalize and retool existing civic spaces. Examples of placemaking could include utilizing an existing park with live music or other events, local art installations, or creating safe, enjoyable spaces for people to sit and relax.

Goal: Value a community’s unique characteristics and engage its residents to build social capital. Objectives: • Engage local colleges and universities to focus outreach activities in targeted revitalization areas. • Connect with local business districts to promote a neighborhood ambassador program in 3 targeted areas within a year. • Secure private sector donations in X amount to beautify the targeted neighborhoods. Potential Audiences: • School districts/universities • Business community/Chamber/merchant groups • Transportation providers (transit, vanpool, taxi) • Media • Neighborhood organizations • Civic organizations

Photo Credit: Valerie Hermanson

• • • • •

Aging community Arts partner Foundations Homeowners Youth

Strategies: Ask how you will connect your selected audiences with your objectives. Tactics: Ask what kind of activities can you engage in to execute your strategies. Sample Message: Our citizens want to live and work in a place that celebrates art, sport and culture and can share these qualities with our city’s/county’s/region’s visitors.

Figure 4.9. ArtPrize Website as an Example of Placemaking. http://www.artprize.org/ Key Qualities: Web-based communication Goal: Promote ArtPrize as a creative, interactive art exhibit that supports the larger artist community. Objective: Drive artist attendance and submissions Audience: potential participants in the art community Strategy: black and white photography, streamlined messages, clearly located call to action

Successful Example: ArtPrize 2013


44

Chapter 5 Funding and Financing Options

Des Moines, Iowa Skyline Photo Credit: www.teamintraining.org

Philadephila, Pennsylvania Skyline Photo Credit: VisitPhilly.com

Oak Park, Illinois Downtown Economic Redevelopment Project Photo Credit: www.economicdevelopmenthq.com

One of the greatest needs identified through this project is the need for local governments and regional planning organizations to identify flexible and available funding and financing tools through which they may build livable communities. The cross-disciplinary nature of livability offers a variety of options to fund or finance plans or projects and this chapter aligns each livability principle with five relevant funding and financing strategies. Due to informational constraints, all livability principles are covered in this chapter except for principle five, coordinate and leverage federal policies and investment. NARC’s research did not identify funding sources that facilitated this process. However, future research may identify a framework through which funding or financing for this principle is possible. Chapter Organization This chapter organizes potential funding and financing options according to each livability principle, identifies the source of the funding, describes the eligibility requirements, provides an explanation of each opportunity and links to each option directly. Additionally, NARC hosts an expansive database of funding and financing options on its dedicated livability website (insert weblink here), which will be updated as new funding and financing options become available. Visit www.NARC.org/livability for a list of additional funding and financing options.


45

Table 5.7. Livability

Principle 1: Provide More Transportation Choices.

Name

Funder

Eligible Party

Bus and Bus Facilities Formula Grants


Local governments

Explanation

Link

capital assistance for new and Subrecipients, such as replacement buses, related public agencies, private equipment, and facilities in both urbanized and rural areas. companies engaged in public transportation and private non-profit organizations

http://www.fta.dot.gov/ funding/grants/grants_ financing_3557.html

Fixed Guideway Federal Transit Capital Administration Investment

Transit authorities and other state and local public bodies and agencies and certain public corporations, boards, and commissions established under state law


Formula Grants for Other than Urbanized Areas

State or Indian tribe that receives a Federal transit program grant directly from the Federal Government


certain light, heavy, or rapid rail system, monorail, inclined plane, funicular, trolley, or automated guideway

The goal of the program is to provide non-metropolitan communities access to health care, shopping, education, employment, public services, and recreation; maintain, Subrecipients can develop, improve, and use include a State or public transportation systems; local government, a nonprofit organization, coordinate programs and services to encourage and or an operator of facilitate the most efficient public transportation or intercity bus service use of all transportation funds used to provide passenger that receives federal transportation; assist in the transit program grant funds indirectly through development and support of intercity bus transportation; and a recipient. provide for the participation of private transportation providers in nonurbanized transportation.



46


Principle 2: Promote Affordable Housing.

Name

Funder

Eligible Party

Explanation

Link / Email

Home Affordable Modification Program

Bank of America

Same requirements as Federal Home Agency.

The government’s goal for modifying your loan is to help you get a more affordable and sustainable monthly mortgage payment.

http://homeloanhelp. bankofamerica.com/ en/home-affordablemodification.html

Home Depot Foundation

501(c)3 organizations or tax-exempt public service agencies that power volunteers to improve the physical health of communities; must focus on supporting veterans

$5,000 max funding level

www.home depotfoundation.org

Rural Community Development Initiative

Brownfield Economic Development Initiative

U.S. Department Varies; Check NOFA of Agriculture

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Any public entity eligible to apply for Section 108 loan guarantee assistance

hd_foundation@ homedepot.com

To develop the capacity and ability of private, nonprofit community-based housing and community development organizations, and low income rural communities to improve housing, community facilities, community and economic development projects in rural areas.

Check USDA website for next Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFA); program is on-going.

Competitive funding program to spur redevelopment of brownfield sites to productive economic use. Must be used in conjunction with a Section 108 loan.

Check U.S. EPA website for next NOFA; program is on-going.

One focus is affordable housing.

http://www.hud.gov/ offices/adm/grants/ nofa10/grpbedi.cfm

Max grant - $3 million

Capacity for Building Sustainable Communities

U.S. EPA and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, a local or state public agency, a for-profit organization (for-profit firms are eligible, however, while they are allowed to cover their direct and indirect costs, they are not allowed to earn a profit from the project, and they are not eligible to receive EPA funding), a nationally recognized and accredited University or College; or any combination of the aforementioned entities as a Capacity Building Team to combine their skills and offer a coordinated program. A Capacity Building Team must designate a lead applicant to act as the fiscal agent for the grant.

http://www.rurdev. usda.gov/HAD-RCDI_ Grants.html

Funding for intermediary organizations who will assist HUD in providing technical assistance to communities engaged in planning efforts built around integrating housing, land use, transportation, and other issues. Primary support will be given to recipients of Sustainable Communities and Brownfield Area Wide Planning grants.

Check U.S. EPA and U.S. HUD websites for next NOFA; program is on-going.


http://portal.hud.gov/ hudportal/HUD?src=/ program_offices/ administration/grants/ nofa11/grpcapbldgsc


47


Principle 3: Enhanced Economic Competitiveness.

Name

Funder

Rural Community Development Initiative

U.S. Department Varies; Check NOFA of Agriculture

Brownfield Economic Development Initiative


Eligible Party

Any public entity eligible to apply for Section 108 loan guarantee assistance

Explanation

Link / Email

To develop the capacity and ability of private, nonprofit community-based housing and community development organizations, and low income rural communities to improve housing, community facilities, community and economic development projects in rural areas.

Check USDA website for next Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFA); program is on-going.

Competitive funding program to spur redevelopment of brownfield sites to productive economic use. Must be used in conjunction with a Section 108 loan.

Check U.S. EPA website for next NOFA; program is on-going.

One focus is affordable housing.

http://www.hud.gov/ offices/adm/grants/ nofa10/grpbedi.cfm


Capital Fund Education and Training Community Facility Grant

Community Development Block Grants

Economic Development Initiative Grant

U.S. Housing and Urban Development



Public housing authorities

State allocated

Only the entities named by Congress in the Committee Print of the Committee on Appropriations U.S. House of Representatives, March 2009 are eligible to apply for Economic Development InitiativeSpecial Project (EDISP) grant funds.

http://www.rurdev. usda.gov/HAD-RCDI_ Grants.html

Capital funding for public housing authorities to construct, rehabilitate, or purchase facilities for early childhood education, adult education, and/or job training programs for public housing residents based on an identified need.

Check U.S. HUD website for next NOFA; program is on-going.


http://portal.hud.gov/ hudportal/HUD?src=/ program_offices/ administration/grants/ nofa11/grpcfcf

Formula grants for local governments to carry out community and economic development activities.


Provide local governments with additional security for the Section 108 loan, thereby reducing the exposure of its CDBG funds in the event of a default in loans made locally with the 108 funds. Or, make the project more feasible by paying some of the project costs with grant funds or by reducing the interest rate to be paid from a revolving loan fund.


http://www.hud.gov/ offices/cpd/ community development/ programs/

http://www.grants.gov/ search/search.do;jses sionid=h0pGTTJCkRB 3Lwz5hvjkrnJ752YhP 2pnYKb2RL1yZ3vBX 6VPz2g2!2057934305 ?oppId=47214&mode =VIEW


48


Principle 4: Support Existing Communities.

Name

Funder

Eligible Party

Explanation

Link

Community Development Block Grant Program


Principal cities of Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs)

The Community Development Block Grant Program provides eligible entities funding to improve communities, neighborhoods and housing opportunities for low and moderate income families.

http://portal.hud.gov/ hudportal/HUD?src=/ program_offices/ comm_planning/ community development/ programs/entitlement

Other metropolitan cities with populations of at least 50,000 Qualified urban counties with populations of at least 200,000 (excluding the population of entitled cities) are entitled to receive annual grants

Community Facilities grants

The Community Facilities grant U.S. Department Areas with population of no more than 20,000 provides eligible communities of Agriculture Public entities as municipalities, counties, and specialpurpose districts and non-profit corporations and tribal governments. In addition, applicants must have the legal authority necessary for construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed facility and also be unable to obtain needed funds from commercial sources at reasonable rates and terms.

funding to construct, enlarge or improve community facilities for health care, public safety and community and public services.

http://www.rurdev.usda. gov/HAD-CF_Grants. html

Free Technical Assistance Workshops

Smart Growth America

City, County, Regional Smart Growth America provides Planning Organizations free technical assistance workshops to city, county and regional levels of local governments to improve communities’ understanding of smart growth.

http://www. smartgrowthamerica. org/technicalassistance/free-annualworkshops

EPA Smart Growth Implementation Assistance


Tribal, state, local, or regional government

http://www.epa.gov/ smartgrowth/sgia.htm

An incorporated nonprofit organization incorporated or domiciled in the United States that has a demonstrated partnership with a governmental agency. Applicants must be located in, and project activities must be conducted within, the United States, Puerto Rico, or a territory or possession of the U.S.

EPA initiated the SGIA program in 2005 with three goals in mind: To support communities interested in implementing smart growth policies; create regional examples of smart growth that can catalyze similar projects in the area; and identify common barriers and opportunities for smart growth development and create new tools that other communities can use.


49


Principle 6: Value Communities and Neighborhoods.

Name

Funder

Eligible Party

Explanation

Link


The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission

Municipalities within the DVRPC region

http://www.dvrpc.org/ tcdi/

Only in the City of Philadelphia are Community Development Corporations (CDC) or nonprofit organizations invited to apply for TCDI funds.

The TCDI program supports the regions core cities and older suburbs through local planning projects that will lead to more residential, employment or retail opportunities; improve the overall character and quality of life within these communities to retain and attract business and residents; enhance and utilize the existing transportation infrastructure capacity in these areas to reduce the demands on the region’s transportation network; and reduce congestion and improve the transportation system’s efficiency.

Local governments and nonprofit organizations within the Atlanta metro region

prepare plans for the enhancement of existing centers and corridors consistent with regional development policies

http://www. atlantaregional.com/ land-use/livablecenters-initiative


The Atlanta Regional Commission

County governments for individual projects or on behalf of several communities in the case of a multimunicipal effort.

http://www. atlantaregional.com/ land-use/livablecenters-initiative/lcitransportation-program

Capital District Transportation Committee

Community and Transportation Linkage Program

Portland Metro

Transit-Oriented Development Implementation Program

http://www.cdtcmpo. Initiatives that implement org/linkage.htm or further refine the recommendations of the Linkage Program plans or other local planning work. Eligible initiatives must have a Other applicants may include State agencies clear and direct connection to transportation issues. Applicants or non-governmental are encouraged to apply for, entities such as notbut are not limited to: strategic for-profits and public zoning code changes/zoning code authorities (with a overlays; site design standards or letter of support from guidelines; official mapping; and the municipality or municipalities in which operational modeling. the study is located) Preferred applicants are towns, cities, villages and counties within CDTC’s jurisdiction

Create new market comparables for higher density buildings near transit and urban centers; cultivate developers with expertise in higher density, mixed-use buildings in suburban settings; increase acceptance of urban style buildings through high quality design; and carry out placemaking and contribute to local identity

http://www. oregonmetro.gov/ index.cfm/go/by.web/ id=140


50

Appendix A: Local and Regional Livability Case Studies Appendix A includes 15 case studies that highlight livability from a regional and local perspective. These case studies include information on the region or localities project, the federal livability principles that it meets, the challenges faced, the solutions created and ways in which the livability plan or project was funded. These case studies are also available on the National Association of Regional Council’s (NARC) dedicated livability portal at www.NARC.org/ livability. Then list the case studies in either one or two columns, whatever the space can fit.

1

2 3 4

5 6

Livability Case Study Key 1. Region At-a-Glance 2. Livability Theme(s) Addressed 3. Federal Livability Principle Addressed 4. Case Study At-a-Glance 5. Case Study Description; Visual Depiction of Case Study; Project Outcomes 6. Model Policies & Tools


51

Atlanta’s Livable Centers Initiative: A Case Study KEY WORDS: SMART GROWTH, COMPLETE STREETS, TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, LIFELONG COMMUNITIES, SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL, CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS/DESIGN, NEW URBANISM, PLACEMAKING

Atlanta, GA Region Population: 5,000,000 Federal Livability Principle Addressed Livability Principle

Increase Transportation Choices

Promote Affordable Housing

Enhance Economic Competitiveness

Support Existing Communities

Livable Centers Initiative (LCI)

X

X

X

X

Fully Supports Livability Principle

X

O

RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS: • • • •

Local governments Community Improvement Districts Private developers Non-governmental organizations

FUNDING/FINANCING: •

Federal M230 (formerly STP-Urban funds)

PROJECT COMPLETED: On-going

Coordinate Federal Value Policies and Existing Leverage Communities Funding

X

X

Partly Supports Livability Principle

PROJECT LOCATION: Atlanta, GA region

FOR MORE INFORMATION: Dan Reuter 404-463-3305; [email protected]

WEBSITE LINK: http://www.atlantaregional.com/land-use/livablecenters-initiative

BACKGROUND

LIVABLE CENTERS INITIATIVE

In the 1980s and 1990s, the population of metropolitan Atlanta grew rapidly. The housing market responded with suburban development growth, and with it congestion and worsening air quality conditions. Serving as the regional council of governments, metropolitan planning organization and area agency on aging, the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) monitors the region’s population, transportation and land use trends, among other issues.

The ARC created LCI in 1999 to reduce vehicle emissions and help the region meet stringent federal air quality standards by providing travel options other than driving. Through the ARC, LCI awards grants on a competitive basis to local governments and nonprofit organizations to prepare plans and construct multi-modal transportation improvements for the enhancement of existing centers and corridors consistent with regional development policies. LCI encourages local jurisdictions to implement development strategies that link residents to shopping, dining and other activities via sidewalks and bike trails, rather than strictly by roads. The initiative has a strategic focus on existing infrastructure and is intended to increase in the share of jobs and population that are supported by transit centers.


52

IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS In 1999, the ARC’s board adopted policies within the regional transportation plan (RTP) to develop investment for activity and town centers. The ARC integrated those policies into the region’s RTP and has approved $18 million in study funds - $1 million annually - for the years 2000 to 2017. The ARC Board also approved an initial allocation of $350 million for priority funding of transportation projects resulting from LCI studies. An additional $150 million was approved for these projects in the 2030 RTP, for a total commitment of $500 million dedicated to transportation projects resulting from completed LCI studies. Eligible parties apply annually for LCI funding. For LCI planning funds, a committee of external organizations comprises the evaluation team and includes organizations like the Georgia Conservancy, the Atlanta Neighborhood Development Partnership, the Livable Communities Coalition, among others. Once an LCI planning study is completed, recipients are eligible to apply for funds for follow-up studies, such as zoning, code changes, design guidelines or market analysis. In addition, LCI communities become eligible for transportation project funding. The ARC evaluates project proposals internally, and only those LCIs that have demonstrated a commitment to implementing their LCI Plans are awarded funding (i.e. adopted LCI Plan into the local government’s Comprehensive Development Plan, adopted a zoning overlay district for the LCI area, etc). While these projects are smaller projects ($3-5 million), they are very popular with ARC’s local governments. The ARC conducts periodic follow-up with their grantee communities to evaluate their implementation efforts and address any challenges their grantees may have.

OUTCOMES Over 100 centers in the region have participated in LCI and have conducted planning and implementation projects to create livable centers since the inception of the LCI program. Through the LCI program, ARC has provided more than $170 Million in funding for 105 transportation projects in 62 distinct LCI areas, including sidewalks, bike lanes, multi-use paths, roundabouts, intersection safety improvements, and roadway “right-

Photo Credit: Atlanta Regional Commission

sizing” projects. Additionally, data indicates that 1,342 development projects have occurred in LCI areas since the beginning of the program. The ARC continues to win awards for LCI. Past awards include the National Planning Excellence Award for Implementation from the American Planning Association, the U.S. Environment Protection Agency’s National Award for Smart Growth Achievement Award, the Certificate of Excellence for Best Practices Project from the National Association of Regional Councils, Transportation Planning Excellence Award for Transportation and Land Use Integration from the U.S. Federal Highway and Federal Transit Administrations, and the Award for Outstanding Innovative and Effective Planning Process from the Georgia Planning Association, among many others.

MODEL POLICIES & TOOLS LCI Interactive Map: http://bit.ly/Z9bqUY

2013 LCI Project Implementation Report: http://bit.ly/ZWoOcT LCI Resources (model policies and codes): http://bit.ly/XdZWMD


53

A Citizens’ Master Plan: A Case Study City of Lauderdale Lakes, FL

KEY WORDS: TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, NEW URBANISM

Population: 3,000,000+ Federal Livability Principle Addressed Livability Principle





Citizens’ Master Plan

X

X

X

X

X


O


Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) South Florida and Treasure Coast Regional Planning Councils Representatives from corridor communities Regional regulatory agencies


X

X


PROJECT COMPLETED: Citizen’s Master Plan adopted in 2004 and Community Redevelopment Plan (CRP) was adopted in 2009 with a detailed 20-year implementation plan.

PROJECT LOCATION: City of Lauderdale Lakes, FL

FUNDING/FINANCING: • • • • •

Federal and State Funding for transportation planning and development Federal Economic Development Administration funds for planning cost Local Tax revenues/Bond funds and Tax Increment Financing Grants for recreation programs/improvements Private sector investment and matching funds

BACKGROUND In 2003, the City of Lauderdale Lakes was beset with an aging commercial corridor with both failed retail and inadequate transportation systems to sustain local economic revitalization. Faced with these problems, the CRA collaborated with the city and public to create and develop a CRP that revitalizes this aging commercial corridor. The CRA provided staff and financial resources to create a redevelopment plan that ultimately promotes the creation of more walkable, transit connected and sustainable places for growth and investment.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: J. Gary Rogers 954-535-2492; [email protected]

WEBSITE LINK: http://bit.ly/UWl73o

THE CITIZENS’ MASTER PLAN

Developed in 2009, the CRP identifies six specific planning elements to improve the community, including: corridors, gateways, community amenities, redevelopment opportunities, industrial park, and residential preservation and enhancement. Additionally, the CRP identifies sitespecific locations to integrate these six planning elements into the fabric of the community better and allocates budgetary resources to achieve the plan objectives annually. In 2013 the City of Lauderdale Lakes will adopt a form-based, Traditional Neighborhood Design Town Center Code to guide future development of the City.


54

IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS The Lauderdale Lakes Redevelopment Plan is the result of an extensive community visioning process that began in 2004 and was conducted over a ten-month period. The recommendations and projects identified in the Plan were a product of the public participation process, led by the Mayor, the Lauderdale Lakes City Commission and the CRA. The purpose of this citizen-led planning effort was also to stimulate a two-way symmetrical communication process between stakeholders, staff and the city leadership through which they shared concerns and priorities related to downtown development. The City also designed the public involvement process to build consensus between the various stakeholders that were important to implementing the redevelopment program successfully. This led to a Citizens’ Master Plan that established the goals and vision for the community’s future. In 2005, city residents approved a $15 million bond to fund public improvements associated with the plan and the city began construction. In 2006, the city amended its land use and zoning codes to include mixed-use local activity centers that support the changes needed to implement the new Citizens’ Master Plan. The CRP is an on-going guide to address identified community priorities and needs for the next 20 years.

PROJECT OUTCOMES As a result of the Citizens’ Master Plan, the CRP established plans to design and develop a city-wide bus shelter system, corridor landscaping, WiFi-enabled bus rapid transit lines, improved corridor hurricane infrastructure hardening, a new library and educational center, four new community parks, increased local employment and renovation of major structures through the Commercial Façade Photo Credit: J. Gary Rogers Program matching funds. Conceptual plans for a regional multi-modal transit center and Light Rail to complete the long-term transition of the SR 7/US 441 corridor, which runs through the center of the city, into a Transit Oriented regional destination were also adopted. Lauderdale Lakes was able to secure funding through the Broward MPO and the Florida Department of Transportation for several of the bus shelters and corridor improvements associated with the plan. Due to the adoption of the Citizens’ Master Plan, the City of Lauderdale Lakes adopted a Traditional Neighborhood Design Town Center Code and a form-based code to guide future development.


55

The Tomorrow Plan for Greater Des Moines: KEY WORDS: A Case Study SMART GROWTH, COMPLETE STREETS,

TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, LIFELONG COMMUNITIES, SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL, CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS/ DESIGN, PLACEMAKING

Des Moines, IA Population: 480,000 Federal Livability Principle Addressed Livability Principle





Tomorrow Plan

X

X

X

X


X

O


Local city and county governments Regional transportation providers Local housing and environmental groups Chamber of commerce groups Greater Des Moines Partnership

FUNDING/FINANCING: • • •

Regional Sustainability Grant Local match dollars Local in-kind contributions


O

X


PROJECT COMPLETED: On-going PROJECT LOCATION: Greater Des Moines, IA

FOR MORE INFORMATION: Todd Ashby; 515-334-0075; [email protected] Bethany Wilcoxon; 515-334-0075; [email protected]

WEBSITE LINK: http://www.thetomorrowplan.com/

BACKGROUND

Prior to the creation of The Tomorrow Plan, the Greater Des Moines, Iowa did not have a coordinated regional planning effort to address population growth and economic sustainability. Several emerging challenges - including population growth, natural resource emergencies, regionalization of solid waste and wastewater services - and national recognition as a top region for young professionals and families led many officials in Greater Des Moines to consider new ways to address these challenges. As traditional solutions no longer seemed adequate, the Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is leading the region to create a regional comprehensive plan that addresses locallydriven livability factors. The MPO is working with local elected officials and community stakeholders to partner

for a greener Greater Des Moines and to create The Tomorrow Plan.

THE TOMORROW PLAN

The Tomorrow Plan improves planning coordination across the region’s housing, transportation and job creation efforts. While the federal livability principles established by the Partnership for Sustainable Communities serve as a model for the creation of The Tomorrow Plan’s guiding principles, they are further tailored to address the region’s unique challenges and guide future implementation strategy recommendations. These goals include creating a resilient regional economy; improving the region’s environmental health and access to the outdoors; furthering the health and well-being of all residents; and, increasing regional cooperation and


56

efficiency at all levels. The Greater Des Moines region administers a regionalized solid waste and wastewater program, which is addressed in the regional livability plan, in addition to the built and natural environments, economic revitalization, social equity and energy.

IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS The MPO initiated the livability planning process by consulting with its local governments and pursuing a federal Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant to conduct the planning effort. The MPO also secured the commitment of local governments to commit staff resources to this effort, which ensured long-term community participation and facilitated communication about the planning process. The Tomorrow Plan also linked to other public-private sector planning initiatives in Greater Des Moines, including the Capital Crossroads plan and DART Forward 2035, both of which have been integrated with The Tomorrow Plan. The collaborative and regional approach used to create The Tomorrow Plan brought a large number of community stakeholders together to create a strategic direction for Greater Des Moines. The MPO created a regional committee of public, private, and non-profit organizations to support The Tomorrow Plan’s goals and to guide implementation. This group includes a variety of partners, such as the Greater Des Moines Partnership, the Community Foundation of Des Moines, Big Sisters/ Big Brothers of Central Iowa, the Center on Sustainable Communities, Principal Financial Group, Wells Fargo, USDA Rural Development, the United Way, the Des Moines Area Regional Transportation Authority, Iowa State University, Drake University, and Des Moines Area Community College, among others. Over a year and a half, the team has held over 200 events. The team leveraged these relationships as well as and social media platforms to reach new audiences and to obtain feedback throughout the planning process.

Photo Credit: Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

OUTCOMES While the development of The Tomorrow Plan is winding down, early implementation activities already have started. Several coordinated activities have begun in Greater Des Moines as a result of these collaborative efforts. For example, a regionalized watershed management authority is forming that will transcend political boundaries and examine natural resource challenges to manage them more effectively. The local governments also conducted a housing impediment anaylsis for the region to examine the obstacles that exist to aligning housing developments and job centers better. The Tomorrow Plan intends to nurture and grow existing relationships in order to propel Greater Des Moines to an even more successful future.


57

Regional Safe Routes in Wisconsin: A Case Study KEY WORDS: SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL, REGIONAL COOPERATION

East Central, WI Population: 681,835 Federal Livability Principle Addressed Livability Principle


Safe Routes to School

X

X




X O



O

O


PROJECT LOCATION:

Marian Sheridan, Fond du Lac Area School Ten-County Region in East Central Wisconsin District Joe Horvath, Omro Middle School FOR MORE INFORMATION: Cheryl Laabs, Winnebago County Health Melissa Kraemer Badtke Department 920-751-4770; [email protected] Tom Walsh, Fox Cities Greenways

FUNDING/FINANCING: • •


Wisconsin Department of Transportation Federal transportation funding

WEBSITE LINK: http://eastcentralsrts.org/

PROJECT COMPLETED: On-going BACKGROUND

ECW SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS PROGRAM

East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (ECWRPC) staff started working with communities to develop local Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Plans with grants through the Wisconsin Department of Transportation in 2007 and 2008. The East Central Wisconsin (ECW) Regional SRTS Program began in 2009, after individually funded school district projects showed a loss of momentum resulting from a lack of adequate support and capacity to actively continue their efforts. ECWRPC regionalized the SRTS program in October 2009, to empower school districts and communities with SRTS programming, resources, knowledge, and help to develop sustainable and successful SRTS programs.

The ECW Regional SRTS Program provides resources and staff to a ten-county region in ECW for SRTS planning, education and outreach activities. While the ECWRPC staff operates the program, the local SRTS task forces choose which implementation activities best suit their community or school. An advisory board, composed of stakeholders throughout the region, guides ECW’s Regional SRTS Program and created a Regional SRTS Strategic Plan to guide and measure the success of the program, which tracks and reports on program elements quarterly. The ECWRPC Board has approved the 2012-2016 Regional Safe Routes to School Strategic Plan and approves the Regional SRTS Action Plan Annually. ECWRPC staff tracks the number of schools participating in ECW’s Regional SRTS Program, events that include International Walk to School Day and Bike


58

Safety Day and the number of students that participate in other SRTS-related activities. The program is currently developing a school recognition program to start tracking successful SRTS programming and identify strategies to improve SRTS programming.

IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS After ECWRPC began coordinating this program for its community in 2009, they invited a large number of stakeholders to the launch of the Regional SRTS Program. At that meeting, ECWRPC asked participants about the challenges they faced in conducting their SRTS programs and strategies to address those challenges. The three main challenges that emerged from that meeting included the lack of funding, staff and collaboration. Regional SRTS Program staff worked with local leaders within the communities already implementing SRTS activities to form the Regional SRTS Advisory Committee. With the Regional SRTS Program, local schools and communities now have a one-stop shop that can help implement plan recommendations and build a successful SRTS Program. The program, which is open to both public and private schools within the ECWRPC ten-county region, allows school districts and communities to start a SRTS program at any time. New SRTS programs begin working with ECWRPC staff to form a local SRTS task force and develop local SRTS action plans. Local SRTS task forces are also able to implement SRTS activities while they are developing their local action plan. The Regional SRTS Program allows local SRTS task forces the flexibility to determine which SRTS activities will be successful at their schools.

PROJECT OUTCOMES The ECWRPC’s work in the development and implementation of a multi-jurisdictional, centralized approach to the SRTS Program has shown clear benefits including program delivery efficiency, program consistency throughout the region and comprehensiveness. The program’s biggest strength is its network of stakeholders that share resources, provide advice, and work together with the common goal to increase the number of students that walk and bike to school.

Photo Credit: Image Studios

The East Central Regional SRTS Program began in October 2009, with 41 schools and nine school districts. As of March 2013, the program includes over 100 schools in 25 school districts. As a result of the program’s growth, the ten counties covered by the ECWRPC comprise a disproportionately large share of the communities with ongoing SRTS programs in the ECW and statewide (about 39 percent and 26 percent of the schools respectively). In spring and fall 2011, two pilot walking school buses launched in Fond du Lac and Green Lake. At Green Lake Elementary School, two walking school bus routes were developed and 25 percent of the students participated on the walking school bus. The ECW Regional SRTS Program is nationally recognized and ECWRPC now serves on the Safe Routes to School National Partnership Steering Committee. Additionally, Omro Middle School, one of the program’s participating schools, received the 2011 James L. Oberstar National Safe Routes to School Award for its work in this area.

MODEL POLICIES & TOOLS ECW Regional SRTS Strategic Plan: http://bit.ly/16rMs2x

Wisconsin Department of Transportation Safe Routes to School Toolkit: http://bit.ly/ZostMY Wisconsin Department of Transportation - Kids Traffic Safety Website: http://bit.ly/ZosHE0


59

Genesee County Water Quality and Smart Growth Plan: A Case Study KEY WORDS: SMART GROWTH, WATER QUALITY, REGIONAL COOPERATION

Genesee County, NY Population: 60,000 Federal Livability Principle Addressed Livability Principle





Water Quality and Smart Growth Plan

O

O

O

O

X


O


Genesee County City of Batavia Monroe County Water Authority Erie County Water Authority


• • •


O

O


PROJECT COMPLETED: 2002, on-going PROJECT LOCATION: 500 sq. miles - Genesee County wide

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Jay A. Gsell U.S. Department of Agriculture 585.344.2550 x2204 Rural development loans/grants [email protected] U.S. Department of Commerce’s Economic Devellopment Administration WEBSITE LINK: Infrastructure grants Community Development Block Grant http://www.co.genesee.ny.us/ infrastructure programs U.S. Environment Protection Agencygrants NYS Member item funds

BACKGROUND

WATER QUALITY AS INTEGRAL TO LIVABILITY

A 1996 Genesee County comprehensive planning effort called for the expansion of countywide access to potable municipal water, particularly in the rural parts of the County. At that time, Genesee County made Smart Growth a strategic planning focus in its jurisdiction when the County Legislature listed the top three priorities to include investing in strategic infrastructure in the County-designated Smart Growth areas, with the principle investment targeted to municipal water access. This focus on expanding access to potable water led to the County’s $54 million water quality infrastructure rehabilitation project.

The County chose to rehabilitate the City of Batavia’s water plant and extend the existing water authorities’ transmission mains into Genesee County, rather than build a new countywide water utility. Additionally, consistent with the County comprehensive plan, this project provided new Smart Growth opportunities for business and industry to locate and expand within the Genesee County.


60

Photo Credit: Genesee County, NY

Genesee County established key measures of success to include an increase in the percentage of those served by potable municipal water, an increase in the ability of people to eliminate private wells and a decrease in the number of antiquated small municipal water production facilities. The construction of $27 million of transmission mains and pump stations also allowed towns and villages to leverage state and federal funding to reduce the water customer’s overall net cost for new municipal water service and shut off private wells.

IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS The focus started with the 1995-1996 Genesee County Comprehensive Plan development, which listed access to potable water as the top priority. The Genesee County Legislature conducted a community wide public information outreach program to communicate the need for water infrastructure rehabilitation and convey the sense of urgency. This supported the County’s efforts to pursue the necessary resources to complete the project. Due to the lack of an appropriate bonding mechanism, Genesee County worked with neighboring Monroe County to leverage their authorities and acquire the necessary funding for water mains and laterals to expand access to over 60% of Genesee County’s population. This type of inter-governmental partnership required state enabling legislation, which the New York State Legislature passed in 2001.

Once New York State legislation passed, Genesee County used Monroe County’s borrowing authority to finance $27 million for the first phase of the project. Through this process, Genesee County also adopted the Genesee County Smart Growth Plan, which facilitated the passage of the state enabling legislation aimed at discouraging sprawl and targeting areas for economic development, business opportunities and preserving valuable agricultural land. In order for Genesee County to secure the necessary local funding to repay Monroe County, Genesee County executed fourteen inter-municipal agreements with its cities, towns and villages. Because the County had already adopted the countywide Smart Growth Plan, these agreements also committed the municipalities to promote Smart Growth. Construction of phase one and part of phase two was completed in 2002, and is still ongoing in the most difficult areas to serve and more rural portions of County.

PROJECT OUTCOMES Due to Genesee County’s planning efforts, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency granted the water quality project $7.5 million to complement the $20 million in state and local funds raised to pay for the project. In 2012, over 60% of Genesee County’s population is served by the rehabilitated county-wide water system in either a retail or wholesale capacity. Due to the new business and industrial growth in the designated Smart Growth areas, Site Selection Magazine named The City of Batavia, in Genesee County, as one of the top ten micropolitan areas in the U.S. for economic expansion in each of the last six years.

MODEL POLICIES & TOOLS New York State Enabling Legislation: http://bit.ly/16kJhK4 Genesee County Smart Growth Plan: http://bit.ly/11SaFjD Inter-municipal facilitating agreements: http://bit.ly/1044ViG


61

Transportation and Community Development in the Delaware Valley: A Case Study KEY WORDS: SMART GROWTH, COMPLETE STREETS, TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, REGIONAL COOPERATION

Genesee County, NY Population: 60,000 Federal Livability Principle Addressed Livability Principle





Transportation and Community Development

X

O

X

X

X


O

RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS: • • • • •

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission Pennsylvania Department of Transportation New Jersey Department of Transportation Transit Agencies Local Governments


Surface Transportation Program (STP) Local Pennsylvania Planning Dollars Local New Jersey Planning Dollars


X

X


PROJECT LOCATION:

Greater Philadelphia, includes five southeastern PA counties and four southern NJ counties.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: Karen Cilurso 215-238-2876 [email protected]

WEBSITE LINK: www.dvrpc.org/tcdi

PROJECT COMPLETED: 2012, On-going BACKGROUND The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) is the federally recognized metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the metropolitan Philadelphia region. It is responsible for prioritizing and allocating federal and state transportation funding across a nine-county region that covers Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware. However, each of the region’s 352 municipalities are responsible for local land use and economic development planning and DVRPC works with their communities to align federal transportation funding with the future development scenarios. Despite committing funding to transportation projects through

the various federal and state transportation funding accounts, DVRPC identified the lack of a targeted grant program that helps local governments develop the ideas and concepts for community revitalization efforts as a barrier to creating more livable communities. To reverse the trends of disinvestment and decline in many of the region’s core cities and developed communities, DVRPC created the Transportation and Community Development Initiative (TCDI) program in 2002.


62

DVRPC’s TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE DVRPC administers the TCDI program that distributes federal transportation funds to local governments through planning grants. These grants are intended to create local plans that link transportation improvements with land use strategies, enhance established communities, and build upon existing public and private assets. After DVRPC adopted their federally-mandated long-range transportation plan, Connections 2035, in 2002, they began exploring ways in which they could implement the region’s long-range vision. DVRPC’s adoption of the TCDI in 2002 established one way to implement the long-range plan, while helping their local governments coordinate regional transportation planning with local land use planning and decision-making. TCDI focuses on the region’s core cities and disadvantaged communities and supports local planning projects that result in more residential, employment, or retail opportunities; improve the overall character and quality of life; enhance and utilize the existing transportation network infrastructure to reduce the demands on the region’s transportation network; and reduces congestion and improves the efficiency of the region’s transportation network. TDCI provided broad latitude for municipalities to define their projects and describe how they relate to the policies and goals of DVRPC’s long-range plan. These small planning grants often serve as seed money to start vital revitalization projects.

IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

PROJECT OUTCOMES Building livable communities involves integrating land use and transportation as well as leveraging additional federal, state, and private resources. From the beginning, the TCDI program has been highly competitive and popular with local governments in the region. This small investment by DVRPC and the municipality is often the catalyst for larger-scale revitalization and investment. Since 2002, DVRPC has provided over $12.7 million ($4.95 million NJ; $7.7 million PA) in TCDI funding, which has leveraged over $332 million in public and private funding. The largest leveraged investment has been in federal dollars ($300.4 million) followed by local investments of over $19.2 million, private investments of $3.5 million, and state investments of $1.5 million. Leveraged funds in New Jersey communities total over $258.1 million and in Pennsylvania communities, they total over $74.5 million. Leveraged dollars include additional planning, engineering, and construction activities. TCDI creates more vital and livable neighborhoods in the region’s core cities, older suburbs and disadvantaged communities that might not otherwise have access to redevelopment funds.

MODEL POLICIES & TOOLS 2012 TCDI Program Guide: http://bit.ly/ZytP6Q TCDI Webmap: http://bit.ly/128Gh0X

Every year, DVRPC issues a call for eligible projects. After the communities fill out a ten-page application, a reviewing committee in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey ranks and prioritizes the proposed projects based on scope of work. The reviewing committee is comprised of representatives from each county, including local elected officials and citizen members, transit agencies, economic developers, community affairs representatives and academic institutions. DVRPC’s Board of Commissioners vote on the ranked projects and finalizes the recommendations every two years. To encourage additional investment and promote community buy-in, DVRPC requires municipalities to provide a minimum of a 20 percent match for all proposed projects. To further ensure community dedication to the project, a minimum 5 percent of the total project cost must be a cash match.


63

Kimberly Mill Redevelopment Strategy KEY WORDS: SMART GROWTH, NEW URBANISM, COMPLETE STREETS, LIFELONG COMMUNITIES, CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTION/DESIGN, PLACEMAKING

Kimberly, WI Population: 640,000 Federal Livability Principle Addressed Livability Principle





Redevelopment Strategy

X

X

O

O

X


O

RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS: • • • • •

AIM Development USA Village of Kimberly Outagamie County Fox-Wisconsin Heritage Parkway East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (ECWRPC)


ECWRPC (local tax levy) Village of Kimberly tax levy


X


PROJECT COMPLETED: 2013, On-going PROJECT LOCATION: Maes Avenue Kimberly, WI

FOR MORE INFORMATION: Eric W. Fowle, AICP 920-751-4770; [email protected]

WEBSITE LINK: http://bit.ly/10jdwiB

BACKGROUND

KIMBERLY MILL REDEVELOPMENT

The August 2008 closure of the NewPage Mill in the Village of Kimberly, WI, eventually led to the demolition of several related structures and resulted in the loss of approximately $40 million in tax revenue (about 8% of the Village’s total tax base) and 600 good paying paper manufacturing jobs. Fortunately, the site offered numerous attractive assets, including over 5,000 feet of Fox River waterfront and access to major highways US 441/41. As a result, the Village identified a 40-acre area, within the larger NewPage Mill site, to focus its redevelopment and rebuilding activities for the community.

Seizing this unique opportunity was of paramount importance to the Village. While the former NewPage Mill site contained three areas covering 98 acres, the main redevelopment site covered less than half that space at 41 acres and contained manufacturing, warehouse, office and surface parking assets. This 41-acre area is roughly the same size as twelve village blocks, the Kimberly High School campus, or the Fox River Mall. The Class 1 Railroad, Canadian National (CN), currently uses some of the development site and the Village continues to work with CN to acquire the property for other uses.


64

In order to redevelop this site successfully, it was necessary to solicit ideas and concerns from local residents and a variety of stakeholders to ensure the integration of the new development with the surrounding neighborhood and land uses. The Village of Kimberly estimates that if planned and implemented successfully, the mill redevelopment could double the previous assessed value of the property, create a more vibrant and livable community, and recoup some of the lost tax revenue.

IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS The Village of Kimberly began implementing this redevelopment strategy by conducting three welladvertised neighborhood visioning workshops in late 2012, which established a vision for the redevelopment of the property. Village staff, local Example of potential riverfront redevelopment. officials and other stakeholders collaborated to Photo Credit: East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission develop and advertise the workshops, which were attended by more than 100 people. The Village and ECWRPC designed these workshops to receive visioning sessions resulted in developing support community input upfront and guide the redevelopment of for urban planning concepts that include Green the former mill site. The organizers also sought to build Infrastructure, Low Impact Development, Placemaking, on the recommendations of the Village’s Smart Growth LEED Neighborhood Standards, Resiliency/Climate Plan and ECWRPC’s regional comprehensive plan, build Change and Crime Prevention Through Environmental awareness of the opportunity that this site provided the Design. This consensus is significant because it will be community, increase the tax base to mitigate the loss of the first, new urbanist plan and development of its scale revenue with the mill’s closure, re-create an identity for the in the east central Wisconsin region and can serve as a Village of Kimberly, identify additional policies necessary to model for future efforts. The project enlightened several ensure the vision for the site is met, and address potential community leaders and residents on the need to address land use conflicts prior to new development. The workshop the livability elements, which are not typically present presentations and interactive exercises provided context in recent development patterns within the Fox Cities for the site and illustrated the rare opportunity, upon metropolitan area. which the Village could capitalize. A short report about the neighborhood workshops serves as the over-arching The Village also introduced the “thinking like a farmer” guide during the subsequent development of a master concept to value land use choices in a similar manner plan for the site. to the way farmers value the production of cropland. The workshops also laid the groundwork to support the development of form-based zoning codes and a Complete PROJECT OUTCOMES Community input significantly shaped the vision for Streets Policy for the Village, which could be created as redevelopment. Based on the workshops, the Village of implementation continues. Kimberly identified community support for street and block patterns that were walkable in scale and the establishment MODEL POLICIES & TOOLS of a street grid pattern to maximize access and promote Think Like a Farmer Planning Tool: development and mobility. http://bit.ly/Z4ZRhB The majority of comments and recommendations supported the creation of a livable, walkable, newurbanist community, which would incorporate mixeduse (commercial/residential) development, riverfront entertainment uses, parks and parkways and adaptative reuse of several remaining structures. The community

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design: http://1.usa.gov/Z07Xbw Low Impact Development: http://bit.ly/12nI9B0


65

Building a Lifelong Community KEY WORDS: LIFELONG COMMUNITY, SMART GROWTH, NEW URBANISM, PLACEMAKING, SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL

Mableton, GA Population: 4,179,500 Federal Livability Principle Addressed Livability Principle





Lifelong Community

X

X

X

X

X


O


Cobb & Douglas Public Health Mableton Improvement Coalition Cobb County Government AARP of Georgia


U.S. Administration on Aging, Community Innovations for Aging in Place Grant Cobb County Special Local Option Sales Tax dedicated to 3 transportation projects Private funding Kaiser Permanente Grant We Can! Cobb and Douglas Public Health Initiative funding

BACKGROUND Cobb County, GA is experiencing a dramatic increase in its older adult population and is expected to continue this trend through 2030. This demographic shift will transform the region and challenge every aspect of the delivery of public and private services, as well as community and infrastructure development. In an effort to address an identified disconnect between the needs of the aging population and the capacity of their local governments to deliver services, the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) created an aging in place model for the Atlanta, GA region, called a “Lifelong Community”. Lifelong Mableton, through Lifelong Communities, is an initiative that encompasses the unincorporated area of Mableton and the southernmost unincorporated


O

X


PROJECT COMPLETED: 2005, on-going PROJECT LOCATION: 5239 Floyd Road Mableton, GA 30126

FOR MORE INFORMATION: Laura Keyes 404-463-3243; [email protected]

WEBSITE LINK: www.atlantaregional.com/llc

part of Cobb County, GA. This area includes a very diverse and low-income population and simultaneously a high percentage of elderly individuals (up to 60% of the population in some locations). The ARC selected Mableton because over the past ten years, it has been a focal point for community improvement in the region.

LIFELONG MABLETON Lifelong Mableton is a project focused on building capacity through planning, design, programming and community involvement to transform Mableton into a community that is livable for all ages. It includes programs and activities that incorporate changes to the built environment, community engagement, and health promoting services and activities, to create a community reflective of the needs and preferences of its residents.


66

Led by the ARC’s Area Agency on Aging, Lifelong Mableton builds on the ARC’s work with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Community Partnerships for Older Adults program, which grounded the ARC’s efforts to assess community readiness for a growing older adult population. Collaboratively with the region’s service providers, the ARC’s staff takes a systems approach to creating Atlanta’s Lifelong Communities by focusing on the promotion of housing and transportation options, encouraging healthy lifestyles and expanding access to services. Based on the framework developed through this process, the ARC made Lifelong Mableton fit its Lifelong Communities goals and integrated it with the activities supported by the community and identified in the Mableton Livable Centers Plan, the South Cobb Implementation Plan, the Mableton Form-based Redevelopment District and the Mableton Arts Study.

IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS In order to realign Mableton with the needs of its aging population, the ARC elicited community ideas and feedback through a number of outreach and education activities. The ARC hosted a week-long planning session that focused on re-envisioning downtown Mableton and identified any potential impediments. The ARC also convened local photographers and citizens to participate in a PhotoVoice project that documented and assessed walkability. They also conducted several community assessments, both online and in person, as well as a phone survey of faith-based services for older adults. The ARC also conducted a nine-day design charrette with over 1,500 participants, including developers, state and county officials, community members, and local and national experts from multiple fields. Findings from these activities informed the development of the Mableton Form-based Redevelopment District, a new zoning framework.

Photo Credit: Studio Fitz

PROJECT OUTCOMES The ARC considers one of Lifelong Mableton’s greatest accomplishments to be its collaborative approach, which includes community members and organizational partners to identify priorities and activities and advocate for their development and implementation. Lifelong Mableton received the EPA’s Building Healthy Communities for Active Aging 2011 Commitment Award for combining smart growth principles with active aging concepts. In 2012, the Georgia Planning Association awarded Lifelong Mableton an Outstanding Initiative for a Large Community award for its accomplishments, including the adoption of a form-based code and the creation of a new elementary school and community garden. Lifelong Mableton provides lessons for replication in other communities and the ARC has been replicating Lifelong Mableton activities in multiple Atlanta communities. Lifelong Community resolutions have been passed in four counties, community assessments have been conducted in eight counties, four jurisdictions have adopted zoning changes, and 18 community gardens and 34 farmers markets have been established. A Special Local Option Sales Tax for Cobb County, approved in March 2011, will help to fund elements of the Mableton Plan until 2015.

MODEL POLICIES & TOOLS Mableton Smart Code: http://1.usa.gov/Z3NifE Mableton Arts Study: http://1.usa.gov/ZXlPzS Walking Mableton Through Local Eyes: http://bit.ly/ZXlYmR


67

Muskegon Area-Wide Plan KEY WORDS: SMART GROWTH, NEW URBANISM, TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, COMPLETE STREETS, LIFELONG COMMUNITIES, SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL, CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTION/DESIGN, PLACEMAKING

Muskegon County, MI Population: 172,188 Federal Livability Principle Addressed Livability Principle





Area-Wide Plan

X

O

X

X

X


O



X

X


PROJECT COMPLETED: 2005, On-going

West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission PROJECT LOCATION: County of Muskegon and Muskegon County, Michigan; located along the eastLocal Units of Government ern shore of Lake Michigan Local Environmental Groups Community Organizations

FOR MORE INFORMATION: Sandeep Dey 231-722-7878 x22 Michigan Department of Transportation & [email protected] U.S. Department of Transportation’s

FUNDING/FINANCING: •

•

• • •

Federal Highway Administration WEBSITE LINK: U.S. Environmenal Protection Agency and http://www.wmsrdc.org/reports&publications.html National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Local Governments U.S. Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration Michigan Coastal Zone Management

BACKGROUND Prior to the development of the Muskegon Area-Wide Plan (MAP), Muskegon County experienced problems stemming from rapid population growth. Minimal coordination among the County’s 27 local governments resulted in growth occurring in an uncontrolled and sprawling fashion. The local governments in Muskegon County recognized that the related impacts of this growth were not desirable and approached the West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission (WMSRDC), the regional council of governments (COG), metropolitan planning organization (MPO) and Economic

Development District (EDD) in the greater Muskegon, County, Michigan region to help them develop a countywide master plan that addressed the issues contributing to their problems.

THE MUSKEGON AREA-WIDE PLAN WMSRDC began working with its local governments in 1999 to create Muskegon County’s first county-wide master plan, the MAP. The County’s local governments led the process, with 24 of the 27 local units of government in Muskegon County participating on the MAP’s steering committee (including the County). The


68

jurisdictions focused on the commonalities across jurisdictional boundaries to create a shared vision for the future of Muskegon County. This vision and associated implementation strategies addressed five areas; land use and growth, natural resources and environment, economy and jobs, infrastructure, and quality of life. The MAP addressed three questions in each of the focus areas that included; what should be done to implement the vision, who should be responsible, and a timeline for implementation. The WMSRDC completed the MAP in 2005 and has continued to implement the strategies and incorporate feedback from its local governments into their planning processes.

PROJECT OUTCOMES

As a result of the creation of the MAP in 2005, the majority of the County’s local governments and many community-based organizations passed resolutions endorsing the MAP and agreeing to incorporate the findings into their individual master plans. The County’s process also resulted in creation of the MAP County-wide Planning Commission Meetings, which allows the County’s 27 planning commissions to educate and encourage networking four times per year. The vision set forth in the MAP also helped WMSRDC secure a $10 Photo Credit: Kristin Peabody million federal environmental preservation grant, as well as a federal brownfields and water and sewer grant. The vision set forth in the MAP also played a key role in the adoption of the Muskegon County Farm Land Preservation Program, administered IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS The creation of the MAP was a grassroots effort that by the County Agricultural Preservation Board. The MAP included active participation from over 1,000 individuals also helped WMSRDC secure a $10 million federal fish and 24 local governments. WMSRDC began this process and wildlife habitat restoration grant, as well as a federal by conducting an analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, brownfields and water and sewer grant. Information about opportunities and threats of the County. This allowed the fish and wildlife habitat project and its recreational WMSRDC to focus their follow-up interviews on gaining and socio-economic benefits is available on interpretive www. the insights of 19 vested stakeholders on the issues signage along the Lakeshore Trail and also at: visitmuskegon.org/signs. that emerged through the exercise and subsequently conducted a statistically valid community survey. WMSRDC conducted a series of community forums to solidify the proposed vision and gain additional community feedback. WMSRDC used scenario planning to create three development scenarios which ultimately helped the community embrace Smart Growth principles. The efforts of WMSRDC and its localities resulted in a new vision for Muskegon County that integrated a series of planning efforts into the MAP and the vision of the MAP into those plans. The plans impacted by Muskegon County’s efforts included, the federally mandated transportation plan and community economic development strategy, as well as the Muskegon Lake Habitat Restoration Project, the Non-Motorized Trail Plan, the Muskegon County Strategic Infrastructure Plan, the Muskegon County Blueways & Greenways Plan & Green Infrastructure Inventory, and the Brownfields Inventory, among others.

WMSRDC is currently updating the MAP and engaging the community to further the successes achieved since 2005. The update process will also identify performance measures for future implementation activities.

MODEL POLICIES & TOOLS WMSRDC MAP: http://bit.ly/ZvQn8c Muskegon County Farmland Development Ordinance: http://bit.ly/Z66vxq


69

Village of Niles Community Rain Garden KEY WORDS: CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS/DESIGN, PLACEMAKING, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE, PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

Niles, IL Population: 29,931 Federal Livability Principle Addressed Livability Principle




Rain Garden

X


O

The Village of Niles Coca-Cola



X

RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS: • •


Private funding from Coca-Cola Volunteers Grants and donations

PROJECT COMPLETED: 2009 and on-going

BACKGROUND The presence of more impervious surfaces like roads, buildings, and parking lots directly correlate with increased flooding and contaminated rivers, lakes, streams and ultimately – drinking water. When it rains, the water cannot penetrate these surfaces and drains into the sewer system, bringing with it pollutants like oil, salt, fertilizer, pesticides, transportation chemicals, sediment and other contaminants. One solution to this challenge is a rain garden. A rain garden is a planted depression that collects and filters rainwater runoff from impervious urban areas like roofs, driveways, walkways and compacted lawn areas. A rain garden is a storm water best management practice in the broader context of watershed protection.

O

X


PROJECT LOCATION: 7114 West Touhy Avenue Niles, IL

FOR MORE INFORMATION: Steven Vinezeano 847.588.8000; [email protected]

WEBSITE LINK: http://www.vniles.com/Content/ templates/?a=207&cat=62

NILES COMMUNITY RAIN GARDEN & PRAIRIE PLAN PROJECT The built environment in the Village of Niles, Illinois contained many impervious surfaces, which impeded water from filtering naturally and returning to the city’s aquifers, and reduces the runoff by allowing storm water to seep naturally into the ground instead of flowing into storm drains and surface waters, which can cause erosion, pollution, flooding, and diminished groundwater. The Assistant Manager of the Village and a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Accredited Professional (LEEDAP), Steven Vinezeano, was interested in exploring how rain gardens could mitigate this problem. The Village concluded that the creation of rain gardens in and around impervious areas could reduce flooding incidents and protect the watershed basin. Additionally, as experts suggest, the inclusion of native plants in rain gardens


70

are desirable because they generally do not require fertilizer and are more tolerant of local climate, soil, and water conditions, thus, native plants became a focus for this project. The Village also recognized an opportunity to collaborate with the Coca-Cola Bottling Company© (Coca-Cola) in a public-private partnership.


The Village first selected a site for the rain garden project that optimized its functioning and facilitated public education. Ultimately, the Village selected a vacant lot near a Niles Pumping Station. After the site was identified, the Village partnered with Coca-Cola who donated $5,000 to contract a landscape architect and design the site. After site selection and design approval, the Village divided the project into three phases; completion of each phase marked important milestones for the Village. The Village felt it was important throughout the project to find leadership support for a demonstration project and buy-in from the community and potential donors in order to get the financial assistance necessary. In phase one, Coca-Cola also donated $6,000 worth of materials and contributed 150 volunteers to work on the project along with other volunteers in the community. In one day, they were able to construct the first of several planned rain garden plots which was 1,400 square feet containing over 560 native forbs and grasses. The Village completed the second phase of the project in the spring of 2009, with an additional donation of $2,000 from the Niles Lions Club and a grant Royal Bank of Canada Blue Water Project Grant of $5,000 to help foster a culture of water stewardship. Additionally, a resident with a local landscaping company donated excavation work worth over $15,000. In the spring of 2009, a group of volunteers and donors spent one-day installing the second phase of the rain garden and prairie plant project, with a total of 2,754 square feet of rain gardens and 1,866 square feet of prairie grass areas, both holding over 2,000 native plants.

Photo Credit: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

PROJECT OUTCOMES

In this case, the Village of Niles benefits from the environmental effects and Coca-Cola protects a resource that is essential to their product – water. The Village estimates that the rain garden and prairie plant project will help replenish 5.5 million liters of water per year. Coca-Cola has constructed rain gardens in seven additional locations and intends to build rain gardens in conjunction with future construction projects where feasible. Regarding the educational goal in phase three,, the Village has installed educational trail signs for visitors and is collaborating with local community organizations and the Niles Public Library District to conduct tours. The Village of Niles is considering locations for future rain garden collaborations such as the one installed at nearby Culver School. They recently approved a major study on storm water that led to the development of a Stormwater Master Plan and a prioritized Capital Improvement Plan. The Village was also awarded an IEPA Green Infrastructure grant of $204,000 for a similar project nearby that is 3x the size. In addition, the site was awarded the 2012 Chicago Wilderness Conservation and Native Landscaping Award from the EPA.

MODEL POLICIES & TOOLS Guidance for Developing Watershed Action Plans in IL: http://1.usa.gov/149p3EM

The Village sought to achieve two long-term goals in the third phase. First, the project sponsors sought to inspire and encourage residents, businesses, schools, institutions, and other communities from the region to become more knowledgeable about rain gardens and sustainable methods of water stewardship and implement similar projects. Second, they wanted to develop educational methods and help facilitate the proliferation of similar projects throughout the community.


71

Oak Park Parking Strategies for Economic Revitalization Oak Park, IL

KEY WORDS: TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT

Population: 52,100 Federal Livability Principle Addressed Livability Principle





Parking Strategies

X

O

O

X

X


O

RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS: • •

Village of Oak Park Walking Parking Consultants


O


PROJECT LOCATION: Oak Park, IL

FOR MORE INFORMATION: FUNDING/FINANCING: •

Municipal Funds

PROJECT COMPLETED: ongoing

Cara Pavlicek 708-358-5770; [email protected]

WEBSITE LINK: http://www.oak-park.us/Parking/index.html

BACKGROUND

OAK PARK PARKING STRATEGIES

As a historic community outside of Chicago, established before widespread use of the private automobile, The Village of Oak Park faces unique challenges in its region when trying to create a balance between pedestrians, transit riders and drivers. The Village has density levels similar to Chicago neighborhoods, but a parking policy that more closely resembles low-density suburban municipalities. In their downtown retail district, the community had a hard time maintaining on-street parking vacancies in prime retail locations during business hours. This frustrated business owners and customers alike.

The Village conducted an analysis of their parking supply and demand to improve parking availability in downtown, and create a vibrant, safe and walkable environment. While they acknowledge that challenges with residential parking have yet to be fully addressed, this study specifically focused on problems in high-volume districts. The study found that employees of local businesses were occupying prime parking spaces all day, which was less expensive than using an off-street garage. The analysis encouraged pricing increases in prime on-street spaces and making off-street parking garages more attractive by allowing the purchase of quarterly garage permits at a reduced rate. A parking management program eliminated hourly limits, priced spaces by desirability, lowered garage prices and made it easier to pay for parking with the use of pay boxes.


72

IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS In 2007, The Village conducted the analysis of parking problems in high-traffic downtown areas, to find ways to ease congestion and regulate turnover. The study found a backwards pricing scheme, with the higher demand spaces priced lower than the lower demand spaces. Consultants recommended to the Village Board that they adopt pricing changes to reverse that pricing scheme, managing demand and encouraging turnover. In July 2008, The Village adopted changes to its parking management strategy that complied with these recommendations and aligned the on-street meter rates in the identified areas. After an introductory period, feedback indicated that the high-demand areas were too expensive and The Village lowered them. Other Photo Credit: http://www.oakparkdining.com/photo/oak-park-IL/downtown-oak-park-il recommendations included offering quarterly parking permits for garage parking at a discounted rate and installing multi-space PROJECT OUTCOMES pay boxes. The multi-space pay boxes allow the drivers Since the implementation of the program, the use of downtown parking spaces has increased and it is easier to pay with credit cards and cash. to find parking. Business owners have seen the positive In order to help residents understand how the new economic effects and issued a statement of support for the parking system works, The Village created a series of changes, acknowledging that shoppers and customers educational materials, including a YouTube “how-to” are drawn to their vibrant downtowns, regardless of the video. Maps show where the meter rates vary, from the lack of free parking. The Business and Civic Council high to the lower demand areas. However, Oak Park of Oak Park has also stressed that the revenue should Parking Manager, Cara Pavlicek admits that more work neither be a source of surplus revenues for The Village remains to educate citizens and business owners on nor a drain on its finances. The Village continues to how parking supply and demand affect the community. examine ways in which they can better regulate parking, In the future, The Village hopes to create Parking Benefit including the feasibility of car-sharing programs such as Districts, where revenue generated from area meters ZipCar and the non-profit I-Go Cars. directly benefits the district in which it was generated.

MODEL POLICIES & TOOLS Parking Strategies to Support Livable Communities: http://1.usa.gov/YExb8g Business and Civic Council of Oak Park Parking Support: http://bit.ly/YWdFnP


73

Life on State Street KEY WORDS: TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, COMPLETE STREETS, PLACEMAKING, CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS

Salt Lake City, UT Population: 1,567,370 Federal Livability Principle Addressed Livability Principle





State Street

X

X

X

X

X


O


Wasatch Front Regional Council Utah Department of Transportation Utah Transit Authority Other regional cities/counties



X

X


PROJECT COMPLETED: on-going PROJECT LOCATION: State Street – from the State Capitol to 12300 South in Draper City

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Private-public partnerships Val John Halford Federal and State funds appropriate in the 801.363.4230; [email protected] Regional Transportation Plan Individual Business Investments WEBSITE LINK: CDBG and other local funds http://www.wfrc.org/cms/index.php?option=com_conte Voluntary donations, endowments and nt&view=article&id=131&Itemid=83 dedications

BACKGROUND

LIFE ON STATE

State Street (U.S. Highway 89), a 17-mile corridor running from Brigham City to Payson, serves as the historical centerline for development along the Wasatch Front. While State Street’s capacity to carry traffic has been protected effectively over the years, adjoining land was developed in a disjointed fashion that favored lowdensity commercial business, retail strip developments, restaurants, motels and car lots. Some redevelopment occurred, but for much of its length, State Street lacks a sense of place, providing Salt Lake City with an opportunity to transform it into a viable and livable corridor.

The primary goal of this project was to enhance State Street and the surrounding land so that planning and market forces would create a livable corridor. Using Wasatch Choices for 2040 as a vehicle, the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) proposed a livable corridor project to encourage growth and revitalization along the State Street corridor. The Life on State livable corridor project offered an opportunity to implement the Wasatch Choice for 2040 Vision in an underutilized corridor and serve as a prototype to inform similar planning efforts throughout the region. Life on State is notable because seven local governments, the Utah Transit Agency (UTA), Utah Department of Transportation, the WFRC and others partnered to holistically plan and implement the long-term vision for this historic highway.


74

This project had two parts: the development of a planning process and a toolbox; the project was a focused planning effort on three defined areas where planning principles and toolbox elements and be applied to improve the overall quality. Local governments and the business community created and implemented a plan for State Street to reduce the problems associated with this high-traffic arterial street - congestion, blight, unfriendly pedestrian environments, and the lack of residential population. Suggested strategies included establishing a boulevard identity, diversifying the property’s land use character, beautifying the streetscape, creating a sense of place, using context sensitive solutions, promoting alternative transportation and exploring mixed-use development concepts.

Photo Credit: Ted Knowlton, The Planning Center


PROJECT OUTCOMES

The Life on State Vision uses the following strategies to translate the vision into implementation. While these short- and mid-term strategies have already been used successfully along the corridor, the plan continues to guide additional development along State Street. Among many others, strategies include: • Establishing Life on State principles as a goal or objective in the Regional Growth Principles for transportation planning; • Creating urban corridor context sensitive street-design standards in WFRC’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP); • Exploring the viability of a streetcar and fixedguideway bus rapid transit (BRT) on State Street in WFRC’s next RTP; • Gaining consensus among the partners on future streetscape improvements along State Street; • Exploring the establishment of new redevelopment areas, and use infrastructure and beautification investments to encourage private development; • Updating the Life on State Vision annually among all partners; and • Establishing minimum densities or intensity standards zoning changes to support the transit corridor.

Four of the participating cities are revamping their plans and ordinances to facilitate livable corridors. In addition, Salt Lake City has built approximately a dozen revitalization projects, since the Life on State Vision was launched. In regards to regional transportation, the most recently adopted WFRC Regional Transportation Plan: 2011-2040, recommends building an enhanced bus line by 2020 from downtown Salt Lake City to the UTA’s FrontRunner commuter rail station in Draper City, and fully upgrade that corridor to BRT by 2040. The Wasatch Choice for 2040 Vision calls for a number of transit-oriented developments on or near State Street, introducing mixed-use residential and commercial land uses.

MODEL POLICIES & TOOLS

Wasatch Choice for 2040 Vision, Growth Principles and toolbox: http://bit.ly/XXgVUa


75

Salt Lake City’s Wasatch Choice for 2040 Salt Lake City, UT

KEY WORDS: SMART GROWTH, COMPLETE STREETS, TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, LIFELONG COMMUNITIES, NEW URBANISM, PLACEMAKING

Population: 1,640,881

Federal Livability Principle Addressed Livability Principle





Wasatch Choice

X

X

X

X

X


O

RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS: • • • • • •

Wastach Front Regional Council, Mountainland Association of Governments Salt Lake County, Envision Utah, American Planning Association, Utah Chapter University of Utah Salt Lake City Corporation Utah Department of Transportation Utah Transit Authority


X

X


• •

Matching grant in the form of the Salt Lake County Cooperative Plan Utah Transit Authority’s Joint Development Industrial Loan Corporations/Community Reinvestment Act

PROJECT COMPLETED: On-going PROJECT LOCATION: 6 sites (see Outcomes)


FOR MORE INFORMATION: Ted Knowlton U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 801-363-4250; [email protected] Development Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant Donated Labor and/or software match from ESRI WEBSITE LINK: http://www.wasatchchoice2040.com Matching grant in the form of UPLAN mapping software

BACKGROUND

WASATCH CHOICE FOR 2040

The Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) estimates that by 2040, the population of the Wasatch Front will increase by 59%. In order to accommodate this growth and address the associated transportation, housing, air quality, economic, water, and public health issues, the region’s local elected officials adopted the Wasatch Choice for 2040 Vision. The Vision outlines a land use and transportation vision for the future of the Salt Lake City region and whose objectives will achieve the federal livability principles and improve the quality-of-life for all current and future residents.

Serving as the regional council of governments, WFRC, the Mountainland Association of Governments (AOG) and Envision Utah began a visioning process in 2005 for growth and development called the Wasatch Choice 2040 Vision. The Vision then served as the foundation for the transportation planning effort that resulted in the current Regional Transportation Plan. The Wasatch Choice for 2040 is The Vision renewed and helps the region focus growth in a variety of activity centers across the region, many of which are coordinated with existing and nearterm transportation systems. While these centers are coordinated with today’s transportation system, new


76

transportation investments will be planned to serve these activity centers, areas of growth, and the region’s special districts. The Utah Transit Authority, Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), WFRC, Mountainland AOG, the University of Utah, Salt Lake County, and the American Planning Association: Utah Chapter formally support The Vision. It includes growth principles to guide decisions and a Vision map that identifies the location and growth center typology. The Vision acts as a unifying framework, which Utah agencies use to collaborate and coordinate efforts. Photo Credit: Photo Dean, The Wasatch Choice for 2040 also uses performance measurements to track the progress of the work related http://www.flickr.com/photos/21202433@N08/7015513743/in/set-72157629474436486/ to the Sustainable Communities Grant as well as other OUTCOMES locally defined measures that help gauge the extent of Wasatch Choice for 2040 represents the first time that community support for The Vision and the process. all of the partners have held formal conversations about integrating quality of life, environmental and equity IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS factors into the planning process. Since the adoption Wasatch Choice for 2040 began when the partners of Wasatch Choice for 2040, the level of collaboration developed a new vision for the four-county region among the partners has increased on numerous issues. using a scenario planning process and grassroots For example, as the transportation agencies develop public participation. The partners held eight workshops their plans, they now work to create one statewide throughout the region and invited local elected officials, unified plan using similar assumptions. Wasatch Choice municipal stakeholders and other interested parties to for 2040 also demonstrated the value of this planning develop a preferred future scenario for the region and with local elected officials and other transportation address population and job growth. These outreach planning organizations. In addition, Wasatch Choice efforts resulted in the development of four land use 2040 received a $5,000,000 Sustainable Communities and development scenarios. The partners used online grant from the U.S. HUD to develop tools to help local questionnaires, open houses, and meetings with stakeholders implement The Vision. stakeholders to identify a preferred scenario and develop the vision and associated growth principles. WRFC formally adopted the growth principles in 2009, with MODEL POLICIES & TOOLS Envision Utah Public Service Announcement Montage: Mountainland AOG adopting them as guidelines. In 2011, http://bit.ly/11aMhpd they received Sustainable Communities Grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Envision Utah Inclusive Housing PSA: (HUD) and have been implementing the vision in a http://bit.ly/15aPOc0 variety of ways.


77


South and West Cook County, IL Population: 500,000

KEY WORDS: LIVABILITY, SUSTAINABILITY, TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, LIFELONG COMMUNITIES, REGIONAL COLLABORATION

Federal Livability Principle Addressed Livability Principle






O

X

O

X

X


O

RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS: • • •

Metropolitan Mayors Caucus Metropolitan Planning Council Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning


The Chicago Community Trust Grand Victoria Foundation Field Foundation

PROJECT COMPLETED: On-going BACKGROUND The idea for inter-jurisdictional collaboration around housing issues became imperative in 2008, as the housing market plummeted and communities in the Chicago region started to grapple with foreclosures. Many communities had neither staff dedicated to housing nor access to resources sufficient to address the abundance of vacant and abandoned properties. Such was the case in South and West Cook County, Illinois. In 2008, southern Cook County had the highest level of foreclosure filings in the region, with 45.8 filings per 1,000 mortgageable properties, compared to 25.4 for the 6 county region. Western Cook County was the third hardest hit area in the region in 2008, with 28.3 foreclosure filings per 1,000 mortgageable properties. The magnitude of foreclosed and vacant properties posed a challenge to stabilizing these communities.


X

X


PROJECT LOCATION: Chicago Region, various communities

FOR MORE INFORMATION: Allison Milld Clements 312-201-4507; [email protected]

WEBSITE LINK: http://www.mayorscaucus.org/pages/Home/Issues/Housing. html

INTERJURISDICTIONAL HOUSING COLLABORATION Recognizing the need to prioritize a response to the region’s increased levels of home foreclosures, the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus (MMC) and the Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC) engaged the municipalities in south and west Cook County to address this challenge by collaborating across municipal borders. The Chicago Southland Housing and Community Development Collaborative (CSHCDC) consists of 23 member communities and the West Cook County Housing Collaborative (WCCHC) consists of five municipalities. Both of the collaboratives sought to make housing investments that promote access to transit and jobs and/or build on existing community and economic development initiatives. The collaboratives created economies of


78

scale with one shared staff to coordinate activities and resources. Interjurisdictional collaboration allowed the towns to capitalize on existing skills, access centralized expertise and leverage municipal resources. By collaborating across borders with a dedicated resource and sharing ideas, the participating municipalities will understand and address the unique issues stemming from foreclosures in their area and assist residents in need more effectively.

IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS Several of the towns in these sub-regions were identified by Cook County as areas of greatest need based on a high foreclosure rate. Modeled on pre-existing examples, the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus (MMC) and Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC) worked with municipal leaders from south and west Cook County to create two formal municipal collaborations in the Chicago region. Financial support from The Chicago Community Trust, Grand Victoria Foundation and The Field Foundation allowed CSHCDC and WCCHC to hire a housing coordinator. Technical assistance from MMC and MPC helped the municipalities develop a coordinated strategy to tackle the foreclosure crisis. MMC and MPC helped formalize and pass the necessary intergovernmental agreements and board/ council resolutions to create the collaboratives, complete grant applications and assist in the coordinator hiring process, among other efforts. MMC and MPC then worked with the collaboratives to establish strategic priorities and identify funding to support a work plan. This work plan served as the foundation of a sustainable approach to housing and community development in their sub-regions.

Renovation of this/these house(s) was funded by the Illinois DCEO “IKE” Community Stabilization Program

Opportunity IKE Disaster Recovery funds awarded them $10.8 million. This funding will help acquire, preserve or redevelop over 200 properties in targeted areas and demolish 40 blighted properties. In addition, the CSHCDC and WCCHC each benefited from HUD Challenge Grant awards of $2.35 million and $2.9 million, respectively, to further the broad goal of creating housing around transit centers. Other groups of municipalities in Cook County are learning from this successful collaboration. Municipalities in northwest Cook County have also come together to identify their housing-related challenges, prioritize their needs and work toward solutions. Most importantly, the efforts of these two clusters of municipalities in south and west Cook County and all of the partners are resulting in the development of a coordinated strategy to tackle the foreclosure crisis and promote housing preservation and creation that is affordable for multiple income levels.

MODEL POLICIES & TOOLS PROJECT OUTCOMES Collaborative staff proved to be key in attracting additional funding to communities and coordinating efforts on shared housing issues. Over three years, the initial investment of $660,000 in the south and west collaborative’s capacity attracted nearly $35 million to the member communities. This represents a better than 50:1 return on investment. Cook County Neighborhood Stabilization Program funds awarded CSHCDC and WCCHC over $12 million and the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic

Policy Paper on Interjurisdictional Collaboration: http://bit.ly/1101zhm Federal Reserve Bank Publication on Interjurisdictional Collaboration: http://bit.ly/10WWPbk Regional Home Ownership Preservation Initiative: http://bit.ly/ZpvqMn


79

Southern California Compass Blueprint KEY WORDS: SMART GROWTH, COMPLETE STREETS, TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, REGIONAL COOPERATION

Southern Califnoria Population: 18,000,000 Federal Livability Principle Addressed Livability Principle





Compass Blueprint

X

X

O

X

X


O

RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS: • • •

Southern California Local Governments Southern California Communities SCAG MPO/Regional Council

FUNDING/FINANCING: • • • •

Federal transportation planning funds California State blueprint planning grants California Air Resources Board grant California Strategic Growth Council grants

PROJECT COMPLETED: 2004, On-going BACKGROUND Southern California’s more than 18 million residents and approximately 200 independent local governments comprise the second largest metropolitan region in the nation. This region is also one of the most congested in the country and suffers some of the worst air pollution due to its large and dynamic economy. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) estimates that another six million residents will be added by 2035, exacerbating roadway congestion and housing scarcity, and threatening the region’s livability and sustainability. Additionally, California passed first-in-the-nation laws in 2008 aimed at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As a result, SCAG adopted its 2012 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) with a regional


O

X


PROJECT LOCATION: Throughout Southern California: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Imperial Counties

FOR MORE INFORMATION: Peter Brandenburg 213-236-1937; [email protected]

WEBSITE LINK: www.compassblueprint.org

Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that integrates transportation, land use, housing and environmental planning with the purpose of reducing GHG emissions from cars and light trucks.

COMPASS BLUEPRINT Compass Blueprint is designed to integrate regional transportation and land use polices at the local level and has become one of the key vehicles for implementing the 2012 RTP/SCS. The program provides planning grants to local governments for demonstration projects and results in examples of integrated local land use and transportation planning that further regional policy while meeting local needs. Initiated in 2004, SCAG’s Compass Blueprint program pre-dates passage of California’s GHG laws. However, since 2009, SCAG has funded projects that


80

can reduce regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and GHG emissions while providing community livability, mobility, prosperity and sustainability benefits. Projects funded through these demonstration planning grants include local climate action plans, general plan updates, development feasibility studies, visioning workshops, development code and zoning change analysis, transit-oriented and mixed-use developments, infill, redevelopment and brownfields planning, downtown revitalization plans, multi-family and affordable housing planning, complete streets and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. SCAG’s Compass Blueprint has evolved into a vehicle to address livability and GHG goals on a regional level.

IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS SCAG initiated the Compass Blueprint program in 2005, when its Regional Council charged the organization with creating transportation and land use plans that were more closely linked with one another. SCAG formally adopted four guiding principles that included regional livability, sustainability, prosperity and mobility. This strategic direction influenced the policies of their federally mandated long-range transportation plan and the demonstration grant program created by Compass Blueprint, from vision through grant selection criteria. When California passed new greenhouse gas emissions reduction laws in 2008, SCAG used the framework established by Compass Blueprint to incorporate the new GHG requirements into regional plans and policy. This included a modification of the regional transportation model to include new GHG emissions metrics and the 2012 adoption of the region’s first Sustainable Communities Strategy, which SCAG integrated into the long-range transportation program fully.

Photo Credit: Southern California Association of Governments

OUTCOMES To date, 133 projects funded by Compass Blueprint have been completed, totaling nearly $14 million in planning assistance from SCAG with many millions more leveraged by these projects. The planning assistance afforded through SCAG’s demonstration grant program has facilitated award-winning plans for several local plans.

MODEL POLICIES & TOOLS SCAG Application for Compass Blueprint Projects: http://bit.ly/16oYiNf Toolbox Tuesdays Training: http://bit.ly/16g2ACb Compass Blueprint Recognition Awards: http://bit.ly/128XVS5

SCAG has issued an annual call for proposals since the creation of Compass Blueprint to solicit project applications from local governments and then reviews and ranks those projects internally. SCAG’s Board of Directors must approve the demonstration projects prior to the receipt of funding and SCAG has conducted periodic reviews of their awardees to examine the efficacy of these grants.


81

Appendix B: Footnotes Foot Notes Literature Review: A Synthesis of Current Practice 1. U.S. EPA. HUD-DOT-EPA partnership for sustainable communities. 2009. http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/ partnership/#background. Accessed Oct. 24, 2011. 2. Allen, T. Making livable sustainable systems unremarkable. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, No. 27(5), 2010, pp. 469-479. 3. Rue, .H, Rooney, K., Dock, S., Ange, K., Twaddell, H., & Poncy, A. The role of FHWA programs in livability. 2011. http://www. fhwa.dot.gov/livability/state_of_the_practice_summary/research2011.pdf. Accessed Oct. 24, 2011. 4. Sanford, E.L. What is the difference between livability and sustainability? 2011. http://www.camsys.com/kb_experts_livability. htm. Accessed Oct. 2, 2011. 5. Amekudzi, A., Meyer, M, Ross, C., & Barrella, E. Transportation planning for sustainability guidebook. 2011. http://www.fhwa. dot.gov/environment/climate_change/sustainability/resources_and_publications/guidebook/index.cfm. Accessed Oct. 2, 2011. 6. Bruntland World Commission on Environment and Development. Report of the world commission on environment and development. 1987. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/42/ares42-187.htm. Accessed Sept.18, 2011. 7. The City of Highland Park, IL. Highland Park community sustainability strategic plan. 2010. http://www.cityhpil.com/ documents/21/sustainabilityplan.PDF. Accessed Sept. 18, 2011. 8. Geller, A.L. Smart Growth: A prescription for livable cities. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 93. No. 9. 2003. pp. 1410-1415. 9. Rue, H., McNally, L., Rooney, K., Santalucia, P., Raulerson, M., Lim-Yap, L. Mann, J. & Burden, D. Livability in transportation. Publication FHWA-HEP-10-028. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2011. 10. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Smart growth. 2011. http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm38.htm. Accessed Nov. 11, 2011. 11. Atlanta Regional Commission. Atlanta region plan 2040. 2011. http://documents.atlantaregional.com/plan2040/docs/lu_ plan2040_framework_0711.pdf. Accessed Oct. 24, 2011. 12. National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, Partners for Livable Communities, & MetLife Foundation. A blueprint for action: Developing livable communities for all ages. 2007. http://www.livable.org/storage/aipi/documents/Blueprint_for_ Action_web.pdf. Accessed Oct. 24, 2011. 13. Smart Growth Network & ICMA. Aging in place and smart growth. 2005. http://icma.org/en/icma/knowledge_network/documents/ kn/Document/5679/Smart_Growth_Issue_Summary_Aging_in_Place_and_Smart_Growth. Accessed Oct. 24, 2011. 14. United States Green Building Council. LEED for neighborhood development. 2009. http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage. aspx?CMSPageID=148. Accessed Oct. 24, 2011. 15. National Association of Home Builders. Climate change, density and development. Better understanding the effect of our choices. 2011. http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?sectionID=2151&genericContentID=151627. Accessed Oct. 24, 2011. 16. United States Environmental Protection Agency & Smart Growth Network. What is smart growth? 2001. http://www.epa.gov/ smartgrowth/pdf/whtissg4v2.pdf. Accessed Nov. 1, 2011. 17. Smart Growth America. What is “smart growth? 2010. http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/what-is-smart-growth. Accessed Oct. 24, 2011. 18. Daniels. T.L. & Lapping, M. Land preservation: An essential ingredient in smart growth. Journal of Planning Literature, No. 19, 2005, pp. 316-329. 19. Emerine, D., Shenot, C., Bailey, M.K., Sobel, L., & Susman, M. This is smart growth. 2006. http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/ tisg.htm. Accessed Oct. 24, 2011. 20. Mishkovsky, N., Dalbey, M., Bertaina, S, Read, A., & McGalliard, T. Putting smart growth to work in rural communities. 2010. http://icma.org/en/icma/knowledge_network/documents/kn/Document/301483/Putting_Smart_Growth_to_Work_in_Rural_ Communities. Accessed Oct. 24, 2011. 21. Burden, D. & Litman, T. America needs complete streets. ITE Journal, No. 81(4), 2011, pp. 36-43. 22. National Complete Streets Coalition. Complete streets. 2011. http://www.completestreets.org/complete-streets-fundamentals/ complete-streets-faq/. Accessed Nov. 10, 2011. 23. Livable Communities Task Force. Freedom from oil: Policy solutions from the Livable Communities Task Force. 2011. http:// blumenauer.house.gov/images/stories/2011/documents/Freedom_ from_Oil.pdf. Accessed Nov. 10, 2011. 24. Kochera, A., Straight, A., & Guterbock, T. Beyond 50.05: A report to the nation on livable communities: Creating environmental for successful aging. 2005. http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/il/beyond_50_communities.pdf. Accessed Oct. 24, 2011. 25. Partners for Livable Communities and National Area Agencies on Aging. Aging in place initiative. 2004. http://livable.org/ program-areas/livable-communities-for-all-ages-a-aging-n-place/programs. Accessed Oct. 24, 2011. 26. Farber, N., Douglas, S., Lynott, J., Fox-Grage, W. & Harrell, R. Aging in place: A state survey of livability policies and practices. 2011. http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/ppi/liv-com/aging-in-place-2011-full.pdf. Accessed Oct. 24, 2011. 27. Appleyard, B. Livable streets for school children: How safe routes to school programs can improve street and community livability for children. 2005. http://www.bikewalk.org/pdfs/forumarch0305.pdf. Accessed Oct. 24, 2011. 28. National Center for Safe Routes to Schools Safe Routes To Schools. Mission and history. 2011. http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/ about-us/mission-and-history. Accessed Oct. 24, 2011. 29. San Diego Association of Governments. 2050: Regional transportation plan. 2011. http://www.sandag.org/index.asp?projecti


82

d=349&fuseaction=projects.detail. Accessed Oct. 24, 2011. 30. Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Transportation 2035 plan for the San Francisco Bay area. 2009. http://www.mtc. ca.gov/planning/2035_plan/FINAL/T2035_Plan-Final.pdf. Accessed Oct. 24, 2011. 31. Denver Regional Council of Governments. Area agency on aging. 2011. http://www.drcog.org/index.cfm?page=agingservices. Accessed Oct. 24, 2011. 32. Marin County, California. Safe routes to schools Marin County. 2011. http://www.saferoutestoschools.org/. Accessed Oct. 24, 2011. 33. Iowa Department of Transportation. Safe routes to schools. 2012. http://www.iowadot.gov/saferoutes/. Accessed Oct. 24, 2011. 34. Sonoma County, California. Safe routes to schools. N.d. http://www.sonomasaferoutes.org/. Accessed Oct. 24, 2011. 35. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Context sensitive design. 2010. http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm57.htm. Accessed Oct. 2, 2011. 36. Atlanta Regional Commission. Context sensitive street design. 2001. http://contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/reading/ context-sensitive-2/resources/context-sensitive-street-design/. Accessed Oct. 3, 2011. 37. Newsome, T., Steinman, N., & Ewing, R. Charlotte’s urban street guidelines: A context-sensitive decision-making method. 2003.http://www.sacog.org/completestreets/toolkit/files/docs/Charlotte%20DOT_Charlotte’s%20Urban%20Street%20 Design%20Guidelines.p. Accessed Oct. 2, 2011. 38. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Context sensitive solutions. 2005. http:// contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/topics/misc/about/. Accessed Oct. 2, 2011. 39. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Context sensitive solutions. 2010. http://www.ite.org/css/. Accessed Oct. 2, 2011. 40. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. New urbanism. 2010. http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm24.htm. Accessed Nov.15, 2011. 41. Congress for New Urbanism. Who we are. 2011. http://www.cnu.org/who_we_are. Accessed Nov.15, 2011. 42. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Transit oriented development. 2011. http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm45.htm. Accessed Nov.15, 2011. 43. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Transit-oriented development. 2011. http://www. fta.dot.gov/about_FTA_6932.html. Accessed Nov.15, 2011. 44. Zimbabwe, S. & Anderson, A. Planning for TOD at the regional scale. 2007. http://ctod.org/pdfs/tod204.pdf Accessed Nov.15, 2011. 45. United States Department of Transportation & United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Better coordination of transportation and housing programs to promote affordable housing near transit. 2008. http://www.fta.dot.gov/ documents/FTA-HUD_Action_Plan_--__Report_to_Congress_2008(1).pdf. Accessed Nov.15, 2011. 46. Project for Public Spaces. What is placemaking. No date. http://www.pps.org/articles/what_ is_placemaking/. Accessed Nov.15, 2011. 47. Myrick, P. The power of place. No date. http://www.pps.org/articles/the-power-of-place-a-new-dimension-for-sustainabledevelopment/. Accessed Nov.15, 2011. 48. Transit Cooperative Research Program. Transit friendly streets: Design and traffic management strategies to support livable communities. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Report 33.pp. 38. 49. Markusen, A. & Gadwa, A. Creative placemaking. [White Paper]. 2010. http://www.nea.gov/pub/CreativePlacemaking-Paper. pdf. Accessed Nov.15, 2011. 50. Pierson, J., Cavanaugh, Hagan, Pierson, & Mintz, Inc. Arts and livability: The road to better metrics. 2010. http://www.nea.gov/ research/Arts-and-Livability-Whitepaper.pdf. Accessed Nov.15, 2011.

Livability Principles 1. Southern California Association of Governments. Growth Vision Report. June. 2004. Web. 4 April 2013. http://www. compassblueprint.org/files/scag-growthvision2004.pdf 2. California Department of Housing and Community Development. Regional Housing and Needs Assessment. 6 May. 2010. Web. 4 April. 2013. http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/housing_element2/HN_PHN_regional.php 3. National Assoiation of Regional Councils. Kimberly Mill Redevelopment Strategies. Washington: NARC, 2013. 4. National Assoiation of Regional Councils. Transportation and Community Development Initiative. Washington: NARC, 2013. 5. National Assoiation of Regional Councils. Oak Park. Washington: NARC, 2013 6. Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. 2012 TCDI Program Guide. 2012. 7. Southern California Association of Governments. Sustainability Program – Call for Pro-posals. n.d. Web. 8 April. 2013. http:// www.compassblueprint.org/apply


83

About The National Association of Regional Councils The National Association of Regional Councils (NARC), representing local elected officials and their regional planning organizations, serves as a national voice for regionalism by advocating for regional cooperation as the most effective way to address a variety of topics including transportation, economic and community development, environment and homeland security. NARC’s member organizations are composed of multiple local governments that work together to serve American communities - large and small, urban and rural. For additional information, please visit www.NARC.org. The National Association of Regional Councils 777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 305 Washington, DC 20002 202.986.1032 phone 202.986.1038 fax www.NARC.org This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document.