U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

54–418 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–235 

GREENER COMMUNITIES, GREATER OPPORTUNITIES: NEW IDEAS FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

EXAMINING THE WAYS IN WHICH HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION 

POLICY CAN WORK IN COMMON TO MEET FUTURE HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEEDS IN OUR COMMUNITIES 

JUNE 16, 2009 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

( 

Available at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/senate05sh.html 
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut, Chairman 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

JON TESTER, Montana 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

MARK R. WARNER, Virginia 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

EDWARD SILVERMAN, Staff Director 

WILLIAM D. DUHNKE, Republican Staff Director 

MITCHELL S. WARREN, Senior Policy Advisor 

LISA FRUMIN, Legislative Assistant 

BONNIE GRAVES, FTA Fellow 

DAWN RATLIFF, Chief Clerk 

DEVIN HARTLEY, Hearing Clerk 

SHELVIN SIMMONS, IT Director 

JIM CROWELL, Editor 

(II)
C O N T E N T S 

TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 2009 

Page 

Opening statement of Chairman Dodd .................................................................. 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27 

Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of: 

Senator Tester .................................................................................................. 4 

Senator Warner ................................................................................................ 5 

Senator Merkley ............................................................................................... 6 

Senator Brown 

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 28 

Senator Bennet 

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 29 

WITNESSES 

Shaun Donovan, Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development . 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30 

Responses to written questions of: 

Chairman Dodd ......................................................................................... 45 

Senator Shelby ........................................................................................... 45 

Senator Schumer ....................................................................................... 46 

Senator Menendez ..................................................................................... 46 

Senator Bennet .......................................................................................... 46 

Senator Crapo ............................................................................................ 48 

Senator Corker .......................................................................................... 48 

Ray LaHood, Secretary, Department of the Transportation ................................ 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34 

Responses to written questions of: 

Chairman Dodd ......................................................................................... 50 

Senator Schumer ....................................................................................... 52 

Senator Menendez ..................................................................................... 54 

Senator Bennet .......................................................................................... 56 

Senator Crapo ............................................................................................ 59 

Senator Corker .......................................................................................... 60 

Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency ................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40 

Responses to written questions of: 

Chairman Dodd ......................................................................................... 62 

Senator Schumer ....................................................................................... 65 

Senator Menendez ..................................................................................... 66 

Senator Bennet .......................................................................................... 66 

Senator Corker .......................................................................................... 69 

(III)

(1) 

GREENER COMMUNITIES, GREATER OPPORTUNITIES: NEW IDEAS FOR SUSTAINABLE 

DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 

TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met at 9:32 a.m., in room SD–538, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Christopher J. Dodd (Chairman of the 

Committee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CHRISTOPHER J. DODD 

Chairman DODD. The hearing will come to order. Let me thank 

all of you for being here this morning in what I believe to be a historic hearing—those words probably get used more frequently than 

they should, but I believe this is historic in that the three witnesses who are with us this morning I don’t believe have ever appeared jointly before this Committee, or for that matter, any other 

committee that I know of, at least going back, and I have looked 

at the records, where we have had the Secretary of Housing, the 

Secretary of Transportation, and the Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency together at one hearing on a common 

theme. So we thank all three of our Secretaries for being with us 

and we thank the audience that has come out this morning and I 

thank my colleagues for joining us here. Senator Shelby may be 

able to get by—we are not sure yet—this morning, and other Members who are interested in the subject matter. 

Today’s title of the hearing is ‘‘Greener Communities, Greater 

Opportunities: New Ideas for Sustainable Development and Economic Growth.’’ This is an important subject matter and all three 

of our witnesses have wonderful backgrounds and knowledge and 

expertise in this area, so I want to begin by thanking all three of 

you for being here this morning and participating in this hearing 

and this discussion of how we move forward. 

So let me thank you for joining us. I hope all had a painless commute, by the way, this morning. But if you didn’t, I can understand 

entirely. I am from Connecticut, and Connecticut has a long history 

of understanding what it is to have a painful commute. Although 

we love our State, we know something about rough commutes. 

Take I–95, the main corridor that runs through Southern Connecticut. Over the last 50 years, average daily traffic in the Connecticut Southwest corridor has increased more than seven-fold, to 

give you some idea of the problem. 
2 

Imagine you are on your way home from a hard day at the office, 

and when you get there, your children are hopefully waiting for 

dinner. But at the rate traffic is moving, you are just hoping you 

might get there in time for breakfast in the morning. For 25 minutes, 45 minutes, over an hour, you grit your teeth and grip the 

wheel harder as traffic crawls slowly along the highway. The air 

is clouded with exhaust from what seems like millions of cars barely moving at almost $3 a gallon, and things won’t get any easier 

when you and your fellow motorists slowly grind along the same 

road to work the following morning. 

So welcome to the daily commute for far too many residents in 

my State and many, many others across this country. It is not 

unique to Connecticut. It is becoming not unique at all. It is becoming more of the standard. So if you know me at all, you know how 

I feel about the importance of new transit options. 

I have been a longtime advocate for the Tri-City Corridor that 

will connect new transit villages, get people off the roads, and revitalize our regional economies. It will accomplish this by initiating 

new commuter rail service and the 110-mile-an-hour intercity train 

service between New Haven, Connecticut and Springfield, Massachusetts, with direct connections to New York City and eventually 

Boston, as well. This project is one of my top priorities as it is for 

the Connecticut delegation here as well as the people in our State, 

and to use this as an example, again, of densely populated areas 

and alternative modes of transportation. 

But our communities are growing and changing and too often, 

our approach to community development policy has been like one 

of those cars on the Merritt Parkway in Connecticut, trapped in 

gridlock, never moving. It is time to rethink the way we plan the 

futures of the places in which we live, work, and raise our families. 

Between 1980 and 2000, the growth of the largest 99 metro areas 

in the United States consumed 16 million acres of rural land. That 

is about an acre for every new household. With new population expected to grow by over 150 million people between 2000 and 2050, 

this land-use trend simply cannot continue for all the obvious reasons. 

Before today, Federal policy has often treated transportation, 

housing, and environmental protection as separate issues, distinct 

from each other. But that system of stovepiping simply isn’t working and the consequences of failing to address the way we plan our 

communities’ growth are many. We will continue to lose our rural 

land and open spaces. We will see a worsening of the traffic congestion that has tripled over the last 25 years. We will continue to pay 

more and more at the pump at a time when our family budgets are 

already stretched to the max. We will continue to push low-income 

families further away from job opportunities. We will continue to 

increase greenhouse gas emissions despite the urgent threat of climate change. 

In February, I wrote a letter to President Obama urging him to 

establish a White House Office of Sustainable Development to coordinate housing, transportation, energy, and environmental policies. The President has been a strong leader on these issues and 

he has already shown a willingness to shake up a Federal Govern-
3 

ment that hasn’t always succeeded when it comes to addressing related issues in a comprehensive, effective, holistic way. 

Today, following up on that letter, we have invited three members of the cabinet who don’t usually spend as much time in the 

same hearing room as they should, in my view. They will be outlining for us the administration’s commitment to sustainable development, a commitment that recognizes the importance of working 

across traditional boundaries to create more cohesive and collaborative policies. 

One important piece of the work that we have to do is to provide 

more transportation choices for families in our Nation. Few States 

suffer from worse traffic congestion than my home State of Connecticut does, and the lack of good transit options costs families 

more than just inconvenience. In large part due to congested roadways and the lack of affordable housing and transit options, Connecticut ranks 49th in the country in keeping our young people in 

the State. Meanwhile, living in a transit-rich neighborhood saves 

money, on average, as much as 10 percent of a family’s budget. 

This is particularly important for those living on fixed incomes or 

struggling to get by in a tough economy, as people are today. 

Improving transportation isn’t just about making a daily commute easier. It is about empowering people to access jobs and critical services and making things just a little bit easier for those on 

a very tight budget. It is a problem that hurts not only the quality 

of life for our citizens, but also opportunities for businesses. So we 

must improve and expand bus and rail service, providing new 

choices for families who would no longer have to drive to work and 

creating space on the road for those who do. And we need to build 

more and better housing options near these transit stations. 

For instance, my State has developed a program called Home 

Connecticut. It makes grants available to towns to plan incentive 

housing zones for higher density mixed-income housing in downtown areas and redeveloped brownfields close to transit options and 

job centers. It is a strategic investment in our economy, our environment, and the quality of our life in Connecticut. We have already begun to make progress in my State and we can do more, 

I believe, across the country with similar models. 

This Committee is currently drafting legislation to provide incentives for regions to plan future growth in a coordinated way that 

reduces congestion, generates good-paying jobs, meets our environmental and energy goals, protects rural areas and green space, revitalizes our main streets and urban centers, creates and preserves 

affordable housing, and makes our communities better places to 

live, to work, and to raise our families. Our bill will also create a 

competitive grant program to provide resources to some of the 

projects identified in this planning. 

There is a lot we can do in this Committee in this area and I 

look forward to continue to work alongside my colleague, Senator 

Shelby, the former Chairman of the Committee, and our colleagues 

on this Committee, many of whom care as deeply about this issue 

as I do, both Democrats and Republicans who are facing these 

issues, not just in urban areas on the East and West Coast, but 

even in our Midwestern States, where congestion is accumulating 

around urban areas. 
4 

It is often a great trivia question to ask people, what is the most 

urbanized State in America? And you will get all sorts of answers. 

Rarely is the answer given, Nevada, but that is the most urbanized 

State in America, with roughly 90 to 95 percent of its population 

residing in one county, of course, Clark County around Las Vegas. 

So these issues are not just East Coast–West Coast any longer. 

Every State in the country, to one degree or another, is facing 

these challenges. So what we are advocating here is not something 

just for those States that are facing the most serious problems 

today, but also planning for what we can down the road. 

Just like I have urged the administration to, I believe we in the 

Senate must work in a coordinated and comprehensive fashion, as 

well, if we are going to succeed in this effort, and particularly this 

Committee will need to work closely with Senator Barbara Boxer 

of California’s EPW Committee and Senator Jay Rockefeller of 

West Virginia’s Commerce Committee as we write the next surface 

transportation bill, legislation that I hope will eliminate the stovepipes that I mentioned at the outset of this hearing within transportation policy and ensure that it helps to advance broad, good, 

related to not just transportation but community development and 

economic growth, energy, and environmental issues. 

Today, we will hear from witnesses who have already begun the 

important collaborative effort within the administration, public 

servants who are doing a tremendous job, in my view, and I commend all three of you for the first 6 months of efforts. Some of us 

have had the pleasure already with Shaun Donovan, who has been 

in my State of Connecticut, my major cities, talking about housing 

and transportation issues. Ray LaHood has been, I know, around 

the country, as well, discussing these issues, as well, with Shaun. 

And Lisa, we welcome you, as well, and your tremendous efforts in 

the environmental policies, as well. 

This administration is today making a significant welcome commitment to sustainable development and livable communities and 

we are eager this morning to discuss how we on this Committee 

can be better partners in helping our communities plan for a much 

more prosperous and enjoyable future. 

With that, let me turn to my three colleagues who are here with 

us this morning, if they would like to make any brief opening comment before turning to our witnesses. Jon. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JON TESTER 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 

for calling this hearing and I want to thank the three witnesses 

today for the great job that you have done in the short time you 

have been in your positions. I very much appreciate your proactive 

nature, each and every one of you. I have had the chance to work 

with Shaun and Lisa directly. I will be working with Ray LaHood 

here in a couple of weeks directly. But the truth is that you folks 

have done some great work in a short period of time and we look 

forward to more great work as time goes on. 

Secretary Donovan was in Montana the end of May at one of the 

sessions we had. He talked about policy solutions and not thinking 

in silos, stovepipes, bringing people together and actually getting 

a good dialog going and getting more bang for the buck and getting 
5 

better service to the people. I think that is what we are here for 

today, ‘‘Greener Communities, Greater Opportunities, and New 

Ideas for Sustainable Development’’ as they apply to housing and 

transportation and water and environment. All those things, there 

is a synergy that can be related between them, and I think that 

this hearing is a good hearing to try to promote that, quite honestly. I don’t think that you can have sustainable communities 

without a good housing program nor without a good transportation 

program, and absolutely without water, just to name three things 

that come to mind. 

So as this hearing moves forward, I am going to appreciate your 

perspective on how we can get things done to make things better 

in this country from a community standpoint and kind of how we 

plot out the road map for the future, really. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you, Senator Tester. 

Senator Warner is—Mark and I have known each other for a 

long time, but as Governor of Virginia, I know this was one of your 

top priorities, dealing with this. Of course, all of us here who serve 

in Congress are familiar with Northern Virginia and the congestion—— 

Senator WARNER. Right. We have no congestion in the Greater 

Capital Area. 

[Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARK R. WARNER 

Senator WARNER. I apologize to you folks in Connecticut who 

have still got it. We have, of course, solved all that problem completely here in the Greater Capital Area. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, and I thank 

these wonderful witnesses. 

I will reserve most of my comments until the questions, but I 

just want to echo what Senator Tester has said, to get out of the 

stovepipes. I know land-use planning and transportation planning 

are normally thought of as a State and local issue, but having some 

notion of what can we do from the Federal standpoint to kind of 

marry those two areas better together was something I am anxious 

to hear about. I am particularly anxious to hear from all of you 

about a concept that I know the Chairman has worked on, the 

green bank idea and how we can use that replenishing asset to 

make investments. Secretary LaHood and I have already had a 

number of conversations about the opportunity to think at DOT 

outside of the silos. 

I didn’t fully appreciate, and this may be a little inappropriate 

to say, but as a Governor, I always would get very frustrated with 

the Federal Government, why we don’t have a comprehensive, logical transportation policy in this country. Now that I am a member 

of the Senate, I understand that better, why we don’t, because of 

just the historic jurisdictional divisions in terms of how we think 

about transportation policy. I don’t think we are probably going to 

change those jurisdictional divisions, but, oh boy, Ray, anything we 

can do from a Federal DOT standpoint to think more holistically, 

more multi-modally, and which obviously ties into greener commu-
6 

nities in terms of how we think about mobility and connectivity as 

opposed to just VMTs is something that is really important. 

So Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you having this hearing. 

Chairman DODD. Certainly. Thank you very much. 

Senator Merkley is a former Speaker of the House and understands these issues. I mentioned Western States, and this is not 

just the highly urbanized States that face these issues. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEFF MERKLEY 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I can tell 

you all that from Oregon’s perspective, you all constitute the livability dream team. We are just delighted to have you working 

hard on affordable housing, on transportation that works in an 

urban environment, and certainly expanding the impact of housing 

and transportation in a positive way on the environment. So I am 

delighted to have you all here. 

Oregon is a State that has been wrestling with this for a long 

time. Apologies to my colleagues from California, who are not here, 

but California was an inspiration to Oregon in that we wanted to 

avoid the sort of sprawl we were seeing to the South when California was growing very rapidly. So we experimented with statewide planning and it has gone through a number of initiatives and 

citizens have affirmed their determination to continue on that path 

with urban growth boundaries to create livability, to improve 

transportation, to make it more cost effective, to save energy, a 

whole host of things. So I look forward to your testimony and 

thank you for the work you are doing. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Welcome, all three of you. We are delighted to have you with us. 

Secretary Donovan, we will start with you and then we will go to 

Ray LaHood. Obviously, any supporting data and information you 

have, along with opening statements and materials from our colleagues, will be included in the record, as well. 

STATEMENT OF SHAUN DONOVAN, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT 

OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Secretary DONOVAN. Good morning, Chairman Dodd and Members of the Committee. It is a great pleasure to be here today to 

speak about the critical link between housing, transportation, and 

environmental policy. I want to thank you and your Committee for 

your leadership in developing and pushing for innovative and integrated approaches to these issues. 

Today, we announce a landmark agreement between the three 

agencies before your Committee that includes six livability principles that will guide our work together, representing a powerful 

statement of common goals, strategies, and purpose for communities across the country whose vitality in the 21st century depends 

on our ability to work together in partnership. 

Earlier this year, I was pleased to testify before the House with 

my colleague Secretary Ray LaHood from the Department of Transportation. Since that March testimony, we have taken important 

steps to improve coordination between our Departments. I am especially pleased to have EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson join us 

today as a partner in this effort, providing further evidence of our 
7 

commitment to collaboration and coordination across the entire 

Federal Government. 

More than ever, I am convinced, as you said, Chairman Dodd, 

that solutions to the myriad challenges facing our housing markets 

must be addressed in a comprehensive way to reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil and drive down energy costs for 

consumers and businesses alike. This means that HUD, in collaboration with our partner agencies, must find new integrated solutions to the multi-dimensional challenges faced by cities, suburbs, 

and rural areas. 

As you know, our budget proposal includes a $150 million Sustainable Communities Initiative to be managed by a new Office of 

Sustainable Housing and Communities. As the Chairman said, we 

need to synchronize climate change, energy, community development, housing, and transportation policy in the most comprehensive, holistic way possible. I believe creating an Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities inside HUD to serve as a single 

point of contact with other Federal agencies is the best way we can 

achieve that goal. Already, these kind of offices at our partner 

agencies have helped break down barriers to change. They are 

proving to be a successful model for interagency coordination and 

collaboration. 

Under our Sustainable Communities Initiative, HUD and DOT 

would jointly administer a $100 million fund to encourage metropolitan regions, via competition, to develop integrated housing, 

land-use, and transportation plans, and to use those integrated 

plans to drive the planning and decision making of localities. The 

goal of this initiative is to articulate a vision for growth tailored 

to specific metropolitan markets that Federal housing, transportation, and other Federal investments can support. 

Funding would generally be used to support the development of 

integrated, state-of-the-art regional development plans that use the 

latest data and most sophisticated analytic modeling and mapping 

tools available. These efforts will benefit urban, suburban, and 

rural communities alike, but require a level of integrated planning 

that spans jurisdictional boundaries in new and unprecedented 

ways. We simply can’t afford to be territorial about these issues 

any longer. 

The Sustainable Communities Initiative in our fiscal year 2010 

budget also includes $40 million in grants that will be used to support metropolitan and local leaders in making market-shifting 

changes in local zoning and land-use rules and another $10 million 

for research. 

With the costs of transportation now approaching those of housing for many working families, we will work to jointly develop a 

Housing and Transportation Affordability Index with DOT. When 

you buy a car, you know very clearly what its energy efficiency is 

because there is a sticker on the window. We need the same thing 

for our houses and our buildings. An Affordability Index will give 

consumers and businesses alike the information they need to make 

informed choices that meet their needs, creating a more dynamic, 

efficient marketplace. That is why we intend to share all this data, 

research, and evaluation with the private sector, to catalyze innovation and maximize market efficiency. 
8 

We will also conduct an intensive review of our respective programs to determine how to support the marriage of housing and 

transportation and to emphasize location efficiency. Included in 

this work will be a historic effort to develop data and bolster research to better track housing and transportation expenditures by 

location. 

Since March when we announced our agreement with DOT, we 

have made significant progress. Teams from our agencies are meeting on a weekly basis. Further, we are pleased to announce that 

EPA is now a full partner. They will work with HUD and DOT to 

address water infrastructure issues, expand technical assistance to 

State and local governments, return brownfield sites to productive 

use, and address hazardous waste and other barriers to reinvestment in older communities. 

As a result of our agency’s work, I am pleased to join with my 

DOT and EPA colleagues to announce a Statement of Livability 

Principles. These principles provide a set of guidelines for each 

agency to formulate and implement policies and programs. More 

importantly, they mean that we will all be working off the same 

playbook. For the first time, the Federal Government will speak 

with one voice on housing, environmental, and transportation policy. 

The first principle, providing more transportation choices, addresses our need to expand the options available to American families, whether commuting to work, dropping children off at school, 

or running errands. 

The second principle, promoting equitable, affordable housing, is 

at the heart of HUD’s mission. In order for our neighborhoods to 

thrive, our regions to grow, and our Nation to prosper, we must 

support communities that provide opportunities for people of all 

ages, incomes, races, and ethnicities to live, work, learn, and play 

together. 

The third principle, increasing economic competitiveness, pinpoints the need to coordinate housing, transportation, and environmental policy to make us more competitive and productive. Our 

Nation’s ability to compete in the global economy is dependent on 

how quickly and efficiently we can connect our labor force to education and employment opportunities. 

The fourth principle, supporting existing communities, identifies 

the need to support community revitalization, build upon existing 

public investments, and preserve our Nation’s rural land. 

The fifth principle, leveraging Federal investment, focuses on increasing the effectiveness of American government at all levels. We 

want to boost the capacity of local communities to more effectively 

plan for future growth and support the ability of local communities 

to think and act regionally. 

Finally, the last principle, valuing communities and neighborhoods, brings the entire effort together. We must ensure that Federal investment supports safe, healthy, and walkable communities, 

whether in cities, suburbs, or rural areas. 

So we have our playbook, Mr. Chairman, strong evidence that 

our efforts to find productive solutions together will rise to the 

challenges before us. But the real test of our commitment will be 
9 

in putting the principles into action. I propose to do that in several 

ways. 

First, over the next few months, I intend to implement a process 

at HUD led by Deputy Secretary Sims to engage every program 

and every office at headquarters and in the field to identify the 

barriers that they encounter in implementing these principles. I 

will also be asking for their ideas, suggestions, and recommendations. This must be an inclusive process and an inclusive process 

depends on listening. 

Second, I will ask our program offices to incorporate these principles in HUD’s next annual performance and management plans, 

and we will charge the 82 field offices around the country with 

bringing these principles to life in the neighborhoods of America. 

Last, we will share with you the performance measures that we 

are developing for each of these principles so that they can be 

measured in tangible outcomes on the ground. As I told you during 

my confirmation, Mr. Chairman, I am a numbers guy. I believe in 

evidence-based government and accountability. Strong performance 

measures will form the criteria for measuring the success of this 

initiative. 

So I am optimistic that with these ideas, these new partnerships, 

and the leadership of my colleagues here today, and with you, as 

well, Mr. Chairman, we are poised to build the stronger, more resilient, and sustainable communities Americans want and need in the 

21st century. 

Thank you, and to Members of the Committee, I look forward to 

answering your questions after my colleagues’ testimony. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you very, very much. I am very excited 

about your livability principles. It is well done, I say to all of you. 

We have been joined by Michael Bennet, as well, our colleague 

from Colorado. Senator, thank you for being here this morning, as 

well. 

Secretary LaHood. 

STATEMENT OF RAY LAHOOD, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION 

Secretary LAHOOD. Chairman Dodd and Members of the Committee, I think the story today is that your leadership has brought 

us together and we are grateful to you. I think the other story is 

that cabinet secretaries can be team players, and we take our initiative for that from President Obama, who when he asked us to 

serve in the cabinet asked us to be team players. 

So Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the 

Department of Transportation’s plans to develop and implement a 

Livable Communities Initiative that will measurably enhance the 

quality of life for families, workers, and communities across America. I want to thank you, Chairman Dodd, for your leadership in 

placing this important issue on the national agenda and gathering 

all of us here today to answer your questions. 

As I said during my confirmation hearing back in January, we 

must invest in transportation projects that preserve and enhance 

the unique characteristics of each urban, suburban, and rural 

neighborhood. To that end, I am committed to ensuring that our 

transportation policies help unite and strengthen communities. Liv-
10 

able communities, by definition, offer residents choices among different modes of travel, from highway to light rail to bike paths. 

Public transit connects housing, employment, and recreational opportunities wherever possible. And plans for growth and development take energy efficiency and lower emissions into account at 

every step. Today, I will describe how we plan to begin to achieve 

these goals. 

As you know, DOT has been collaborating with Secretary Donovan at HUD on concrete ways to encourage communities and developers to integrate housing and transportation planning and related 

investments, and I am pleased to announce that Administrator 

Lisa Jackson of the Environmental Protection Agency has agreed 

to join our Sustainable Community Partnership. I particularly 

want to thank the Committee for its role in encouraging us to join 

forces and you, Mr. Chairman, for encouraging us to work together. 

The three-way partnership will have an enormous effect in enabling the Federal Government to coordinate and direct Federal investments in water infrastructure, better air quality, housing, and 

transportation. This is a new direction for the DOT and our partners and we are grateful to President Obama and his senior advisors on the environment, domestic and urban policy for supporting 

this important effort. 

I am very confident that our agreement to align policies and programs across our three departments, which have traditionally been 

stovepiped, is a very positive and important step forward toward 

making our livable community concept a reality. We simply cannot 

continue business as usual. 

Fresh water is a scarce commodity in many fast-growing communities in the West and Southwest. Air quality remains poor in 

many large urban areas. And many of our highways, airports, and 

freight railways are far too congested to operate as they should. We 

need fresh ideas to address these challenges. We need to think holistically because history has shown that a piecemeal approach does 

not work over the long term. If we are truly serious about combating climate change, encouraging Americans to walk more and 

drive less, and conserving natural resources through more efficient 

land use, then we must take this cross-cutting approach. 

Within the last few weeks, our partnership has identified an ambitious set of principles that will define our efforts in the coming 

months as we articulate policies, programs, and grants that States 

and communities can tap into. Our principles include: Providing 

more transportation choices; expanding access to affordable housing, particularly housing located close to transit; enhancing economic competitiveness in terms of giving people access to jobs, education, and services, as well as giving businesses access to markets; 

targeting Federal funds toward existing communities to spur revitalization and protect rural landscapes; increasing collaboration 

among Federal, State, and local governments in order to better target investments, and improve accountability; and valuing the 

unique qualities of all communities, whether urban, suburban, or 

rural. 

Secretary Donovan, Administrator Jackson, and I stand ready to 

work with Congress to ensure that these principles are embedded 

in forthcoming legislation and regulations that govern our pro-
11 

grams. This certainly includes the next surface transportation authorization bill, which we want to make sure is compatible with our 

livability agenda. This is a big task, but I am confident we will succeed. 

Thanks to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and 

thank you for those who voted for it, momentum is already building. The Recovery Act’s $1.5 billion discretionary TIGER Grant 

Program will soon begin funding multi-modal transportation 

projects that promote greater mobility and sustainability. We know 

we are going to receive many, many creative proposals that will 

help transform the transportation landscape in urban and rural 

areas around the country. 

The commitments I have described here today, along with other 

efforts such as new and revitalized inner-city passenger rail service, illustrate President Obama’s unprecedented commitment to 

making transportation work more effectively and efficiently for all 

Americans. It is a promise I look forward to keeping alongside with 

my colleagues. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your questions. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. We thank 

you for those comments, as well, and can’t begin to tell you how 

excited we are that you have taken over the helm of the Department of Transportation and your commitment to these issues, so 

we are very grateful to you. 

You know, these are big issues and it is time we took on some 

big issues in the country. The small bore politics that went on too 

long, I think is hopefully over with. And so this is the kind of debate we ought to be having and reshaping this debate in a way, so 

I thank you for that. 

We are going to turn to Senator Bennet. Senator Merkley was 

here, but he had to step out. Senator Bennet? Excuse me, I apologize. Lisa, I apologize. I am jumping to my colleagues instead of 

getting you, Lisa. I apologize. Lisa Jackson, thank you. 

Senator BENNET. I know how late the Chairman was up last 

night. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman DODD. We arrived together about one in the morning. 

STATEMENT OF LISA P. JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR, 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. JACKSON. Oh, my goodness. Well, good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the opportunity to be here. It is an unusual 

venue for me, so I can certainly understand why you are not used 

to seeing EPA here, but we are happy to be here this morning. And 

to Members of the Committee, good morning. 

I am absolutely delighted to be here this morning with two of the 

most extraordinary members of President Obama’s green cabinet, 

my colleagues Secretary Ray LaHood and Secretary Shaun Donovan, to discuss our agency’s work on sustainable development. Mr. 

Chairman, I salute you for your longtime interest and work on 

these issues and I am so happy we are here to discuss them today. 

We are happy to announce that EPA has entered into the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, and I thank Secretaries 

Donovan and LaHood for their leadership on this issue. EPA has 
12 

been working for years on issues of smart growth and this partnership represents a real leap forward for not only our agencies, but 

for the American people. 

The partnership recognizes that the work of our agencies is connected in designing or improving our communities to be sustainable 

for the long term. Mobility, housing, and environmental issues are 

entirely interconnected. Where you live affects how you get around, 

and how you get around affects where you live. Both decisions affect our environment. We cannot reduce greenhouse gas emissions 

without a development strategy that reduces vehicle miles traveled, 

and we cannot provide affordable housing without taking into account what residents there must pay for their transportation, for 

their energy, and for their water. 

This partnership will help advance each of our missions. Working 

across agencies gives us an opportunity to share knowledge, resources, strategies, and coordinate planning in ways that will improve health and the environment, cut costs and harmful emissions 

from transportation, and build more affordable homes in communities all over the country. 

Through it, our agencies will work together to help make sure 

our Nation’s policies embrace well-designed, energy-efficient, waterefficient, affordable housing, a transportation system with more options for reaching jobs, schools, parks, medical care, and other basic 

needs, and waterways that are clean and safe for drinking, swimming, and fishing, air that is safe to breathe and land that is free 

of toxic contamination. We have created a framework that will 

guide the cooperative development of policies, regulations, spending 

priorities, and legislative proposals that emphasize environmental, 

economic, cultural, and social sustainability. Collective implementation of those policies at the State, local, and Tribal levels will ensure that we accommodate our Nation’s anticipated growth in 

smarter, more sustainable ways. 

Vibrant and prosperous towns and cities will attract the residents and business investment needed for robust growth. When 

growth flows naturally to these places, it makes it easier to protect 

environmental resources, such as forests and wetlands, and helps 

preserve wildlife, farms, rural landscapes, and scenic beauty. 

Smart growth principles are equally important in urban, suburban, and rural areas. A few weeks ago, I visited Wyoming, where 

EPA’s Smart Growth Program—and I have to take a second to acknowledge John Frece’s leadership—is helping Governor Dave 

Freudenthal address the effects of the State’s energy development 

on its environmental resources. In one of the least densely populated States in the Nation, residents often found themselves in 

heavy commuter traffic. The jobs weren’t in the same places where 

the employees could afford to live. Smart growth approaches to 

these kinds of impacts are just as relevant in small town rural 

America as they are to different sets of challenges in New York, 

New Haven, Birmingham, or Houston. 

At EPA, our focus will be on encouraging smart growth approaches to protect human health and the environment. This includes using smart growth as a tool to combat climate change. 

Combined, buildings and transportation contribute 63 percent of 

our Nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. Smarter growth, combined 
13 

with green building techniques, can take a significant chunk out of 

that number. 

Transportation uses 70 percent of the oil consumed in this country, and on average, roughly 20 percent of U.S. CO2 emissions come 

from passenger vehicles. More efficient vehicles and cleaner fuel 

simply will not be enough to meet our greenhouse gas reduction 

and energy independence goals. Reducing the number of miles we 

drive must also be part of the solution. 

There is no need to wait for some technological breakthrough to 

reduce the amount of driving we do. The strategies to help people 

drive less exist today and one of them is smart growth. We know 

that investing in public transportation, making communities more 

walkable, and creating more housing near job centers result in less 

driving. It is also critical to build on the progress in air quality we 

have seen since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1990. And 

smart growth can help us get there, too. 

As we move forward, the continued integration of air quality, 

land-use, and transportation planning will be important. EPA helps 

State and local agencies calculate emissions benefits for many of 

the strategies that support sustainable communities—better transit, increased carpooling, and other travel options. These resources 

can help communities meet Clean Air Act air quality requirements 

and build better, more livable communities. 

And we are seeing real results across the country. Atlantic Station is a 138-acre redevelopment project in Atlanta, Georgia. 

Through a public–private partnership involving the State of Georgia, the city of Atlanta, the Atlanta Regional Commission, Jacoby 

Development, Incorporated, and the EPA, the former Atlantic Steel 

Mill site was reclaimed and redesigned to help residents and workers significantly reduce the amount they need to drive. 

One of the largest brownfield redevelopments in the U.S., this 

national model for smart growth includes six million square feet of 

LEED-certified office space, two million square feet of retail and 

entertainment space, 1,000 hotel rooms, and it will have between 

3,000 and 5,000 residential units upon full build-out. A shuttle system that carries one million people a year circulates between a 

commuter rail stop and Atlantic Station. Space is reserved for light 

rail service in anticipation of future transit investments. Residents 

of Atlantic Station drive an average of less than 14 miles per day, 

compared to 32 miles a day for the average Atlantan. 

Atlantic Station has also helped improve water quality. Because 

it is compact, Atlantic Station uses much less land than a conventional development for the same amount of housing and commercial 

space. This efficient land use reduces annual stormwater runoff by 

almost 20 million cubic feet a year. Assuring that all have access 

to clean drinking water, that we improve water quality in our communities, and that we build wastewater treatment and stormwater 

systems is vital to our health. 

EPA is also poised to significantly increase its funding for wastewater infrastructure through the Clean Water State Revolving 

Fund. This will help communities meet the challenges of upgrading 

aging wastewater and stormwater infrastructure. As part of our 

partnership with DOD and HUD, EPA will encourage States to direct additional funds to cost-effective, environmentally preferable 
14 

approaches to infrastructure in the planning, design, repair, replacement, and management that also promote sustainable communities, and EPA will provide guidance and technical assistance to 

States. 

In addition to improving water quality, our SRF fund can support expanded housing choices. In my State of New Jersey, we have 

shown how Federal funding can be used in both rural and urban 

areas to help communities get the type of environmentally sound 

development they want. The State provides lower-interest loans for 

water infrastructure projects that serve mixed-use developments 

and provide residents with transportation choices, such as transit 

villages. 

Importantly, our new partnership with HUD and DOT will help 

us revitalize neighborhoods that have suffered from decades of disinvestment. Redevelopment of such sites is difficult. Because such 

sites are usually served by infrastructure and transportation, they 

represent development opportunities that are critical to transforming years of disinvestment into a future of prosperity. 

Healthy communities are not only environmentally healthy, they 

are socially and economically strong. They offer employment and 

education, safe and affordable homes, and access to recreation, 

health care, and the needs of daily life. These kinds of neighborhoods exist all over the country and market demand for them is 

strong. In fact, the strong market has driven up costs in smart 

growth areas, too often putting them off limits to lower-income 

residents. 

EPA is working with our partners to create environmentally responsible affordable housing in these neighborhoods. Coordinating 

with State housing officials and the Regional Council of Governments, EPA’s Smart Growth Program recently helped four communities in the Hartford, Connecticut area use State affordable housing funds to create mixed-income, mixed-use, green compact developments with a range of transportation options. As partners, we 

will help communities make sure that publicly financed housing is 

attractive, safe, and convenient. 

In conclusion, thank you so much for the opportunity to appear 

here today. Working together, this is a great opportunity to achieve 

economic and environmental goals that our President has outlined 

for our Nation. Thank you. 

Chairman DODD. Administrator Jackson, thank you very, very 

much. Those are wonderful examples. I was talking about where it 

is always good to hear about projects actually working and doing 

exactly what we are talking about, so demonstrating this is very 

achievable, that these are not just ideas that have now been demonstrated in some communities across the country. 

Let me start, if I can, and I will keep an eye on the clock here, 

and since we don’t have an overflow crowd of Members here this 

morning, we will do it sort of more informally. We have been joined 

by Sherrod Brown, Senator Brown of Ohio. Thank you, Senator, for 

being with us. So I will keep an eye on the clock here, as well. 

As I mentioned in my opening comments, we are working on 

some legislation on the Banking Committee to try and come up 

with some resources to help to encourage better coordinated planning in our communities, and basically that. There may some in 
15 

some communities do a little bit more on the planning, but certainly the idea is to get some resource base, because that is a challenge. Obviously, States and localities are facing tremendous pressures on budgets today and just trying to meet current demands 

on everything from education and health issues and so forth and 

the like. 

So at this juncture, it is hard, and obviously we have got our own 

constraints here, as well. But if we all recognize the value of having better planning and coordination, then it may be worthwhile 

for us to step up. 

Senator Warner made the point earlier, when he was a Governor 

looking at the Federal perspective from his chair as Governor, 

whether or not there was any kind of coordinated effort that he 

could count on as a Governor, and I presume mayors and others 

ask the same questions around the country. Are we going to do 

this, and how can we be a partner in this? What is our role in all 

of this, respecting obviously localities want to have that determination themselves as to what works best for them and don’t want us 

in Washington dictating to them in ways that make it impossible 

for them to achieve the results as they see them. 

But I think they agree, as we are seeing in my State of Connecticut, more and more communities, for instance, on affordable 

housing are setting aside lands now so that they are available to 

attract people, working families to be able to live in these communities. So it is not limited to those who can just afford the higher 

cost of housing and driving people away at times when they need 

that workforce in their own communities. So there is, I think, a desire across the country for much of what we are talking about 

today. 

But I wonder if you might share with us just quickly, all three 

of you, what are some of these obstacles we are facing in a way? 

The budget issue is obviously the obvious one to some degree. But 

beyond that, what are the obstacles to coordinated planning at the 

local and regional level and what can we do to encourage regional 

integrated planning? 

I think, Administrator Jackson, you talked about citing examples 

of things that are working. For communities that haven’t yet tried 

it, they want to know if there are examples out there around the 

country where this has actually worked and people are benefiting 

from it. 

Secretary Donovan, do you want to start? 

Secretary DONOVAN. I would love to. I couldn’t agree more that 

in addition to the need for resources to support this planning, 

which is along the lines that you are talking about in the legislation, very consistent with what we are proposing in our Sustainable 

Communities Initiative for our budget, part of the problem here, 

frankly, is right now, the Federal Government is in the way. We 

are holding up local efforts to try to do this integrated planning. 

So this is exactly as you say. This isn’t about forcing localities to 

do something they don’t want to do. This is very much about getting out of their way in addition to providing resources to help 

them do it. 

One example I would give of that that we have already started 

to work on with Secretary LaHood and his team, right now, we re-
16 

quire through HUD programs a 5-year consolidated plan to be submitted to HUD to get access to many of our block grant programs 

and other funding programs. At the same time, the Department of 

Transportation is requiring metropolitan planning organizations 

and others to do long-range transportation plans. And yet, just as 

you have talked about the stovepipes that exist, we don’t have any 

integration between those plans. So if a local area wants to do a 

single comprehensive plan, it is much too complicated for them to 

meet both of our needs for those different plans. So we can help 

them lower costs for these planning efforts by bringing together the 

requirements and help to get the kind of coordination that we 

want. That is one example. 

A second thing I would say more specific to HUD is we have 

many—some of them, I would say, well-intentioned but problematic 

requirements in our programs, things like environmental requirements that make it hard, as Administrator Jackson talked about, 

for urban areas to redevelop brownfield sites, which are the most 

cost-effective in terms of access to transit and other things. But 

whether it is not having risk-based state-of-the-art environmental 

requirements in our programs, that is an example. 

Another one would be we support multi-family development, 

rental buildings, across the country, but we have limits on how 

much commercial income can support those mortgages because we 

do residential housing. Well, that gets in the way of the kind of 

mixed-use development that we want to support in urban areas. 

So there is a range of barriers like that that are critical for us 

to start to address in our programs and that is exactly what we 

have begun to do through this partnership. 

The last thing I would say is that better information will help 

markets respond to exactly these kind of things. People are voting 

with their feet. If you look at what has happened in the foreclosure 

crisis, the biggest drops in prices have been in the least sustainable 

places, places that don’t have access to transportation, things that 

we have talked about here today. 

But right now, the market can’t price in those factors. If I am 

a lender and I want to make a mortgage to somebody, if they are 

going to spend in one house 10 percent of their income on transportation and in a different house 30 percent of their income on transportation, the first house is going to be a safer investment for me. 

But as a lender, I don’t have the information I need to be able to 

provide better terms or to respond to the safety that is a marketbased solution that can help to support more sustainable development. By developing an Affordability Index, as I talked about in 

our testimony, we can help to drive the market in directions that 

respond to exactly the kind of things that we are talking about. 

Chairman DODD. I am very excited about the Affordability Index. 

I mentioned to some of you, I was in Chicago yesterday and met 

with some people on transportation issues, and one individual particularly is doing—I think I mentioned this to you, Ray—he is 

doing mapping, transportation mapping, an overlay. An awful lot 

of people are looking at where to locate, where to buy. Obviously, 

the value of the homes, what they can afford. 

Usually the second question is, of course, what are the schools 

like? And you can get surveys. Most States do surveys now and will 
17 

tell you what communities are providing higher levels or better 

quality of education, and that is a major driving factor. I have communities in my State that people literally will beg, borrow, and 

steal to afford a home in that community exclusively because the 

quality of the public schools is so good. So that is a factor. 

What we don’t have is the overlay on transportation, the secondlargest cost. It is the cost of the home and the cost of transportation. And so the ability to then be able to lay over that and say, 

here is what your transportation costs are going to be, I think you 

are going to—first of all, it is an incentive at the local level to be 

able to provide those alternative transportation means so that people can calculate that and may have a major impact on that decision making process, much as the school quality is, as well. 

So I think it is a terrific concept and idea and one that we need 

to develop in the Committee, as well. 

Ray, what are your thoughts on that? 

Secretary LAHOOD. I think your Committee could do a good service by reforming the Metropolitan Planning Organizations. The 

most common complaint I hear from mayors is that the Metropolitan Planning Organizations don’t really fit their opportunity to 

really coordinate a lot of different activities. It is a system that 

worked in the past, but I would encourage you and your staff to 

work with the Conference of Mayors. They have some very good 

ideas about getting these Metropolitan Planning Organizations to 

encompass much more of the metropolitan area—not just the cities, 

but the suburban areas and the rural areas—to incorporate some 

of the planning that needs to be done. 

I think the other thing that we are trying to do, and where you 

can be helpful in your legislation, is to create a Livable Communities Program. The Program incorporates a lot of the coordination 

that we are trying to effect, and really develop it with our cooperation, so that we send a message to America that this is not just 

some concept, but that it is doable and it is doable because all of 

the different components of the Federal Government are willing to 

work together to do it. 

And I think the third thing from our point of view is on New 

Starts and the availability of funding for transit for rural areas and 

light rail. There is the opportunity for different kinds of availability 

of our New Starts money for transit, whether it be for buses or 

vans to go out to rural areas to deliver people to a doctor’s appointment and so forth. Some of those things exist, but we want to work 

with you on really getting the reforms that allow some of our opportunities to become a part of the Livable Communities Program 

that we want to work with you on. 

Chairman DODD. A great concept. 

Administrator Jackson, you talked about this already, but any 

additional thoughts on the—— 

Ms. JACKSON. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman. I think your question 

implies part of the answer, this is—and Secretary Donovan said it, 

as well—this has to be from the bottom up. The intent and the desire on the part of communities is out there. Communities have a 

vision for what they would like their future to be. 

I think the Federal Government’s role is in providing technical 

assistance, that success stories like we passed on that help them 
18 

refine their vision, and then tools that help them implement the 

kind of code changes or zoning changes to actually effectuate those 

visions, because I think oftentimes communities feel a bit at a loss 

and then they feel as though they are fighting the Federal Government who inadvertently—if they are not helping them, they are 

surely—if they are not hurting them, they are surely not helping 

them. So I think we are here today to say we intend to make sure 

we are working not at cross purposes but reinforcing each other. 

Chairman DODD. I mentioned these transportation costs and 

these mapping ideas. I presume either Secretary Donovan or Secretary LaHood will correct me on these if I am wrong. I am told 

that the average household spends roughly 20 percent of its budget 

on transportation, the average household in the country. Low-income households spend, on average, 55 percent of their disposable 

income on transportation. And we also know that once a transit 

line is proposed in an area, the value—contrary to what I think 

people historically believe to be the case, the old notion of what 

side of the railroad tracks did you live on, and the old assumption 

was that if you are on the wrong side of the tracks, the value of 

your home, the economic conditions were less. 

Today, that is just the opposite. In fact, there are many communities now we know—and we can calibrate exactly—home values 

probably have gone up because, in fact, there has been a light rail 

line available. So we are watching values go up at the very time 

we are trying to promote affordable housing. And if we are looking 

at 55 percent of that disposable income of poor families is going to 

transportation, or 20 percent of the average family, do you have 

any quick answers on how we address this notion here of trying to 

make sure that there is going to be that affordable housing for people who are seeing such a large percentage of their income be consumed by transportation? Any quick comments on that? 

Secretary DONOVAN. Absolutely. I think you have hit on exactly 

the key issue here, which is what we have seen, the experience has 

been where you create transit-oriented development, you actually, 

by coordinated efforts of local, State, and Federal Governments to 

make investments in transportation, you create enormous real estate value, as well. And there is a great opportunity to use techniques like inclusionary zoning to capture some of that value right 

up front in the zoning code to create diverse housing options that 

include low-income workforce housing or moderate-income, as well 

as market-rate housing, which as we have learned over the last few 

decades in housing costs, is exactly the most sustainable kind of 

community from a housing point of view. 

But you can do that with relatively little cost in terms of traditional subsidy mechanisms because the value that you are creating 

in the real estate with greater density, with the access to transit 

there, gives you the opportunity to capture some of that value and 

to build it in. 

My own experience as a local housing official, that is exactly 

what we did, and we are very successful in creating those at a relatively low cost to government in terms of the subsidies that we 

had to provide. 

What I would add, though, is that one of the things that I saw— 

again, as a local housing official—is that many people around the 
19 

country are interested in inclusionary zoning but don’t have the 

skills or expertise to do the economic modeling, to understand how 

to get the details right at a local level, and this is one of the things 

with the $40 million that we proposed in our Sustainable Communities Initiative is exactly the kind of effort that we could support 

in terms of technical assistance and help to localities to say, look, 

it has been successful in these other communities. Here is how the 

models have worked. We can get you information and help that will 

allow you to establish local zoning codes that will actually work in 

this direction. So that is one example of the kind of thing that we 

could do. 

Chairman DODD. I will turn to Senator Tester, but Secretary 

LaHood or Administrator Jackson, any quick comment on that? 

Secretary LAHOOD. I was in Houston recently, and from downtown took a light rail out to their medical center, where M.D. Anderson, the children’s hospital, and the women’s hospital are located. All along the way, they took housing that was dilapidated 

and now you see condominiums and other kinds of housing developing. So people who could not afford an automobile to get to their 

doctor or their hospital could take a light rail line, and as the rail 

line was developed and built, housing began to develop along with 

it. 

It is, if you build it, people will come. And when you do that, you 

don’t have to have three automobiles. You may have to have one, 

but you can get on the light rail at the condominium and take it 

either to a medical center or you can go to downtown Houston. It 

works. 

Chairman DODD. Administrator Jackson, anything? 

Ms. JACKSON. Only quickly to emphasize the point you made, Mr. 

Chairman, which is in doing redevelopment, we also, I think as a 

Federal Government, need to be very mindful of not pricing those 

who most need that housing out of the market. Certainly people 

with money want to live in the most convenient places, and when 

schools are there, young families will come. But we have to be careful in redevelopment, and I think there are some tremendous opportunities for EPA to work on redevelopment clean-up issues that 

ensure that we replace mixed-income communities with new mixedincome communities, because otherwise I think we have a fundamental issue of fairness. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you very, very much. 

Senator Tester. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

One of my pet peeves as a farmer is the fact that we tend to 

build houses on the best farmland that we have, not marginal stuff, 

the absolute best stuff. And the redevelopment issue is an issue 

that I think can help stave off part of that. 

I guess my question as it applies, going around this country and 

seeing—and I think it applies everywhere, by the way, but seeing 

large groups of people where if you want to look at bang for the 

buck redevelopment in a city like Cincinnati, maybe, better than a 

city like Bozeman, but the question is, how are you going to determine how the funds for redevelopment are allocated? Just kind of 

give me some sort of idea on what your vision for that is. 
20 

Secretary DONOVAN. The current proposal that we have for the 

Sustainable Communities Initiative is that we have a competitive 

process to start with. The idea here would be to pick a relatively 

small number of places, including urban and metropolitan communities as well as rural communities that have already begun some 

of these efforts, that are interested, as you heard Administrator 

Jackson talk about, efforts in Wyoming and elsewhere that have already started. So we would be looking through competition to allocate initially those funds. 

But the idea is in the longer term—I talked earlier about what 

we do with our consolidated plans right now and our long-term 

transportation plans, that those aren’t integrated. We can learn 

from these early competitions and integrate the best ideas into all 

of our block grant and other programs that we have. So that would 

be an initial effort. 

I would say also that I do think you make a very good point 

about farmland. Right now, 50 percent of all the people in the 

country that live in rural areas live within parts of metropolitan 

areas and the pressure on that farmland is enormous. And things 

like I talked about earlier, with the way that we finance multi-family developments, rental developments, we have a bias toward 

greenfield development in our programs because of the many restrictions that we place on it, whether it be commercial income, 

whether it be the cost limits that we set in those. 

There are many things that we do, many of them unwittingly, to 

push development into the kinds of rural areas that you are talking 

about, as well as policies that hurt the small towns in rural areas 

that have lost retail businesses where the second floors—I was 

talking to Tom Vilsack about this on a recent trip—the second 

floors of many of those towns are empty because we don’t have 

good housing options, whether it be for seniors in those towns or 

others that could be used to keep those small towns vital. 

So I think there is a range of things that we would hope to demonstrate with these early competitions and sustainable communities that show how this is applicable in rural areas. 

Senator TESTER. That is good. 

Secretary LaHood, you talked about transportation options, and 

I agree that it makes the livability index go up when you do. Are 

there modes of transportation that you feel we get a better bang 

for the buck initially by spending money on it, or what is your perspective on that? What I am talking about is—and I suppose it varies from region to region, but light rail or putting more money into 

highways or bike paths or walking paths. Where are we somewhat 

focused? Or maybe we are not. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Our focus is going to be to work with these 

two extraordinary cabinet members and to do what I think Americans want us to do now, to do what has been done in Portland, Oregon, to do what has been done in some other communities, where 

you don’t have to own three automobiles. If you want to bike to 

work, walk to work, take a bus to work, take a light rail to work, 

take a streetcar to work—offer people some options and some opportunities—and you can do this in neighborhoods like in Chicago. 

Obviously, you can’t do it in all of Chicago, but you can carve out 

neighborhoods—and I have talked to the mayor about this—and 
21 

create green neighborhoods that allow people to use lots of different 

forms of transportation. That is how you can really get a bang for 

your buck, and that is the direction that I think we want to go. 

Because I know that you represent a large rural State, I want 

to say this. We have some good rural transportation programs, and 

we want to work with you all to really expand on that, that allow 

for transit districts, maybe not a bus, but maybe a van to go out 

to a community, deliver somebody to a doctor’s appointment, a grocery store. People that have lived in these small communities all 

their lives, they want to stay there and there are funds available 

through USDA, the Rural Development, for housing so people can 

stay in their communities. We have funds available that allow for 

rural transit to deliver people back and forth. So if they can’t drive 

a car or don’t own a car, can’t afford a car, they don’t necessarily 

need a car. 

Senator TESTER. Right. 

Secretary LAHOOD. And they can still live in these rural communities. But I think that, again, is a very good bang for the buck and 

provides good transportation to people. 

Senator TESTER. I appreciate that, Secretary LaHood. I also 

would say, as long as we are not thinking of stovepipes or silos 

anymore, when it comes to rural communities, there is a lot of opportunity, not only for your transportation system, but to partner 

up with the VA, IHS, senior groups, all those things, because there 

are some buses running around and it seems like there is not 

enough money to fund any of them well. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Yes. 

Senator TESTER. But if you could team up—— 

Secretary LAHOOD. Right. 

Senator TESTER. Administrator Jackson, I guess my question revolves around the challenges that the EPA would have in being a 

part of this, because it seems as though housing is housing, transportation is transportation, and they are very complicated in and 

of themselves. But if you have a situation where you have a water 

issue with pollution or whatever, or an air issue, as far as that 

goes, how do you dovetail into this so it all happens in a timely 

fashion? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, we will embrace the opportunity to do so, 

Senator, and I think we have long had an Office of Smart Growth 

that for us is very much about breaking down the silos, even within 

the environmental protection field, and realizing that something 

that I think most people know intuitively. The absolute best strategy for protecting farms and forests and wetlands and the places 

that are valuable ecologically and economically is to have strong 

towns and cities and hamlets where people can locate and live in 

the vicinity of the land they work, respecting private property values, as well. 

So it actually—we do a lot of regulation at EPA and it is very 

important regulation and I often appear before other committees to 

defend the work we are doing. But one of the things I hope people 

leave here with is that we also understand that if we build strong 

towns, people can live there with adequate transportation and still 

have the rural quality of life that they want. I do not see them at 

all as incompatible. In fact, this is music to our ears at EPA. 
22 

Senator TESTER. Good. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate 

the comments the panel has made. 

I wanted to explore a little more, Secretary Donovan, the Affordability Index. How do you see energy issues being incorporated into 

that structure? 

Secretary DONOVAN. I think there are two ways that it factors in, 

one directly, and one more indirectly. First of all, we don’t have 

today, as I said in my testimony, a simple way for a consumer who 

is looking to buy a home or to rent a home to understand what 

their energy costs are going to be. So very specifically—and we 

have begun work with Secretary Chu on this, as well—to get to a 

more transparent, simple Affordability Index that includes what 

will you pay for utility costs. And what that would allow you to do 

is to have a market for energy efficient mortgages that actually 

works, that functions effectively. 

And ultimately what that does is to translate the savings that 

you can achieve through improvements, whether it be retrofits or 

in new construction to lower energy costs, allows you to price that 

in right up front and to get a benefit in that with a higher mortgage that will eliminate the up-front costs of putting in those improvements. 

So the kind of information and affordability index that we are 

talking about will help very directly to help consumers understand 

what they are buying, to understand what their costs are, and to 

begin to price those into financial markets in a way, I think, that 

could be extremely powerful in helping to develop the kind of energy efficiency that we are talking about. 

As an indirect measure, however, the location efficiency that we 

are talking about, as well, goes directly to energy use, as well, because as Administrator Jackson talked about, by reducing vehicle 

miles traveled, we also help to cut greenhouse gases. So by having 

an Affordability Index that includes transportation costs, the lower 

the transportation costs, in general, the lower the carbon emissions 

will be, as well. 

So in both of those ways, energy efficiency and location efficiency, 

the Affordability Index could be a big help. 

Senator MERKLEY. Do you see this as something that would be 

required with each house sale? Would it be on a voluntary basis? 

Would it be new homes only required, voluntary for others? Kind 

of how do you see it being rolled out? 

Secretary DONOVAN. We are looking at those options right now, 

and in fact, one of the things that we found, there are lots of localities that are already doing innovative things around this. I think 

initially, as we understand what the costs might be, I think there 

are lots of options that we have for doing it on a voluntary basis 

or working with localities that already have programs in place. We 

want to make sure before we go to any sort of requirement that 

there is an efficient and effective way to do this so that we don’t 

add significant costs to the cost of buying a home up front. 

Senator MERKLEY. I just wanted to mention to you that one of 

the issues that I am working on is a low-cost lending facility that 
23 

would enable homeowners, regardless of whether they are selling, 

to basically overcome the up-front costs of, if you will, the more energy efficient windows, et cetera, and then see that reflected back 

on their electric bills or perhaps on their property tax bills, depending on the partnership, and kind of a way to overcome that sticker 

shock on the front end, because if the savings are more than the 

payments on the loan, it doesn’t cost you anything up front. So I 

am trying just to put it out. 

Secretary DONOVAN. I couldn’t agree more, and that is why I 

think in the long run, if we develop a mortgage market that can 

pay for that, we don’t need to subsidize it. It can be done just by 

the market itself. In the shorter run, there are both efforts with 

utility companies and on property taxes that we are looking at in 

many localities. We also are proposing a $100 million Energy Innovation Fund in our budget proposal that would be used to support 

exactly those kind of financial innovations that you are talking 

about. 

Senator MERKLEY. Great. Great. 

Secretary LaHood, thank you very much. When you were here 

for the nomination process, I was asking you to take a look at the 

streetcars and the obstacles on the New Starts and you did so and 

you cut the red tape in a spectacular way, so thank you very much 

for bringing common sense to that issue. 

The issue I wanted to ask you about is in terms of it still seems 

easier to get funding for a lane of highway than it is for a rail line. 

A lot of what we have experienced in many places is you add a lane 

of freeway and a mile of freeway will only accommodate, when it 

comes to congestion, 100-plus cars being parked, which fill it up 

very fast if you haven’t addressed every other point of congestion 

within the system. So we have this misleading sense that if you go 

from two lanes to three lanes, you increase the capacity by a third. 

If often doesn’t happen, while rail pulls a lot of people off. Plus, we 

have the induced demand problem. 

Are there other things we can do to kind of help shift kind of— 

get the greatest bang for the buck in terms of how we invest in 

these different modes of getting people from home to work? 

Secretary LAHOOD. I think this hearing today highlights the idea 

that we need to have alternatives for people. Everybody, I think, 

gets it, as far as automobiles go, that we are not going to eliminate 

automobiles, but we need alternatives so that people have access 

to transit, whether that be a bus or light rail, or people have the 

ability, as I said, to walk or bike, or to take streetcars. That is the 

direction that we really believe is the wave of the future, and obviously you all—certainly the Chairman feels that way and I think 

many of you do, also. We are in sync with you on that. We need 

to put some resources in that. 

And we also need to make sure that our New Starts program 

doesn’t take forever to get funded in order to accomplish our goals 

of creating some light rail or more transit, more buses, more options for people, and we are working on that. I assure you that we 

are going to really streamline it so that, while we are not going to 

cut corners, it shouldn’t take 10 years to get these kind of systems 

up and running in communities. I assure you it won’t take 10 years 
24 

under our Department because we have people now that realize 

that we can reduce the time that it takes to get these approvals. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. I wanted to mention that Oregon Ironworks just got a contract to provide 

streetcars to Tucson and we are hoping that other cities will be following. I also understand, I had invited you to come to Oregon and 

ride the streetcar, and I understand you are coming in July. We 

don’t know yet—my team is working with your team. Hopefully, I 

will be able to join you and invite you on the streetcar, but thank 

you for coming to Oregon. 

Secretary LAHOOD. I look forward to that. Thank you. 

Senator MERKLEY. I am out of time, Ms. Jackson, so I will follow 

up in the future. 

Ms. JACKSON. It is good to see you. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

Chairman DODD. Senator, if you want to take a few minutes, 

please. Senator Merkley, if you want to take another couple of minutes—— 

Senator MERKLEY. I just wanted to give you a chance to expand 

on any of the pieces, as you are thinking about the housing, as you 

are thinking about the transportation, of creative ways that we can 

strengthen this partnership, things that you would—the message 

you would like us to hear as we work to assist in this effort. 

Ms. JACKSON. Just that EPA is thrilled to be here, to be part of 

the partnership. We have had a long history of advocating and supporting and supplying assistance on these issues. We have a 

brownfields program which is all about essentially land recycling. 

I will leave you with one little thought that I think communities 

know, but John said it to me and so I repeat it everywhere I go, 

which is that if we want to know if a community is healthy in the 

environmental world, we look for indicator species that tell us 

whether or not a population of whatever species is dying in a water 

system or not. And when you want to know whether a community 

is healthy in terms of smart growth, look for pedestrians. In fact, 

pedestrians is a good indicator species for a healthy community. 

People feel safe enough to walk. They have somewhere to go when 

they walk, to the doctor or to a store. They have recreational opportunities. They have transit opportunities. So we are all about building a thriving community of pedestrians out there along with HUD 

and DOT, and I think if we keep that in the front of our minds, 

we will end up with some good policies. Thank you. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. Thank you. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you, Senator, very, very much. 

Senator Bennet. 

Senator BENNET. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing and thank you for thinking about this legislation. 

I would like to thank the cabinet secretaries for being here and 

leading by example and putting down your arms or your stovepipes 

or whatever this is, because I think the more we get into this, what 

we are going to discover is that a lot of well-intentioned efforts at 

every level of government, from municipal all the way up to the 

Federal level, have put us in a place where we are not incentivizing 

the kind of behaviors we are thinking that we want, and in many 

cases, the reverse is true. We discovered that in Denver as we 
25 

began to think much more holistically about our planning process, 

our zoning and housing rules. 

I hope as we think about the legislation we put that in the forefront of our minds, that we want to create a set of incentives and 

disincentives that lead people to think broadly about these issues 

across various sectors—transportation, housing, environment, I 

would add education to that list, and there are probably other 

things as well—and also to think regionally in their approach. 

You mentioned, Secretary LaHood, the Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations. I couldn’t agree with you more. I think we need to 

think about how to give our local and regional organizations more 

support in collaborating together. 

And to that end, the only question I really have is for you, which 

is how can we help you as you think about expediting the Federal 

funding process for projects that clearly meet by any measure sustainability and livability goals so we can get some of these things 

out of the chute and people can begin in communities that maybe 

aren’t as ready as Senator Merkley is or mine so that we can begin 

to get them on board? 

Secretary LAHOOD. Well, Senator, first of all, you and I have 

talked about this before, but you have one of the most innovative 

mayors in Denver that I have ever met and he is thinking outside 

the box all the time about all these issues, whether it is education 

or housing or environment or transportation. He and I have had a 

number of discussions, as you and I have, and I want to commit 

to you that we are figuring out ways to streamline the process, because I know you have some important projects in your State and 

we are working with the mayor and others to make sure that everything is done correctly but that it doesn’t take 10 years to get 

it done. We are committed to doing that at the Department and 

some of these things have just taken too long. 

And so, really, it is up to us to streamline these things and figure 

out ways to get the money out the door so we can get people to 

work and get these important projects out to the communities and 

we are committed to doing that. 

Senator BENNET. Secretary Donovan. 

Secretary DONOVAN. I was just going to add, to build on something Secretary LaHood had said in his testimony, I do think the 

reauthorization bill is an enormous opportunity for us to do that. 

There are things that we can do with our rules and our notices on 

a regulatory front without any changes in Congress on the legislative authorities we have. But there are certain things that will 

need legislative changes, as well. 

So we have begun through our partnership a process of literally 

going program by program to say, what are the barriers and what 

will we need legislative changes on, and I think the reauthorization 

bill is a perfect opportunity, not just to put these principles into action and speed the process, but also to help us get out of the way 

on a lot of these barriers. 

Senator BENNET. I hope you will let us know whatever it is we 

can do to help you get out of the way, because there is a lot of 

imagination out there, not the least of which is in my mayor, but 

lots of other local officials, as well, and I think if we have this opportunity to unleash that imagination and unleash the creative po-
26 

tential that is there, we really can get after some of these projects 

across the country and move past the sort of theory of government 

that says we will all be dead by the time we are done with this. 

So I just want you to know from my perspective—I know there 

are others here who feel the same way—whatever we can do to 

help, you just need to let us know. 

Thank you for your testimony today. We are very grateful. 

Senator TESTER [presiding]. Further questions? Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. No. 

Senator TESTER. OK. I just want to thank you all for being here 

today. I want to echo the comments that Senator Bennet just said. 

If there are legislative things that we can do to help facilitate your 

success in working together and creating better communities, just 

let us know. Thank you very much for being here. 

We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:54 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Prepared statements and responses to written questions supplied for the record follow:] 
27 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CHRISTOPHER J. DODD 

I’d like to thank you all for being here today. I hope you all had a painless commute, but if you didn’t, I understand. I’m from Connecticut. And although we love 

our State, we know something about rough commutes. Take I–95. Over the last 50 

years, average daily traffic in the Connecticut Southwest Corridor has increased 

more than sevenfold. 

Imagine you’re on your way home from a hard day at the office. When you get 

there, your kids will want dinner, but at the rate traffic is moving, you’re just hoping you can get there in time to make them breakfast tomorrow. 

For 20 minutes, 45 minutes, over an hour, you grit your teeth and grip the wheel 

harder as traffic crawls slowly along the highway. The air is clouded with exhaust 

from what seems like millions of cars barely moving—at almost three bucks a gallon, by the way. And things won’t be any easier when you and your fellow motorists 

slowly grind along the same road to work tomorrow morning. 

Welcome to the daily commute for far too many residents of Connecticut. 

If you know me, you know how I feel about the importance of new transit options. 

I’ve been a longtime advocate for the Tri-City Corridor that will create new transit 

villages, get people off the roads, and revitalize our regional economy. We will accomplish this by initiating new commuter rail service and 110 mile-per-hour intercity train service between New Haven and Springfield, Massachusetts, with direct 

connections to New York City and, eventually, Boston. This project is one of my top 

priorities and I am going to work with leaders in my State and Secretary LaHood 

to get it done. 

But our communities are growing and changing. And too often, our approach to 

community development policy has been like one of those cars on the Merritt Parkway—trapped in gridlock, never moving. It’s time to rethink the way we plan the 

futures of the places we live, work, and raise our kids. 

Between 1980 and 2000, the growth of the largest 99 metro areas in the United 

States consumed 16 million acres of rural land—that’s about an acre for every new 

household. And with our population expected to grow by over 150 million people between 2000 and 2050, this land-use trend simply cannot continue. 

Before today, Federal policy has often treated transportation, housing, and environmental protection as separate issues. But that system of stove-piping simply isn’t 

working. And the consequences of failing to address the way we plan our communities’ growth are many. We’ll continue to lose our rural land and open spaces. We’ll 

see a worsening of the traffic congestion that has tripled over the past 25 years. 

We’ll continue to pay more and more at the pump at a time when our family budgets are already stretched to the max. We’ll continue to push lower-income families 

further away from job opportunities. We’ll continue to increase greenhouse gas emissions despite the urgent threat of climate change. 

In February, I wrote a letter to President Obama urging him to establish a White 

House Office of Sustainable Development to coordinate housing, transportation, energy, and environmental policies. The President has been a strong leader on these 

issues, and he has already shown a willingness to shake up a Federal Government 

that hasn’t always succeeded when it comes to addressing related issues in a comprehensive, effective way. 

Today, following up on my letter, we’ve invited three members of the Cabinet who 

don’t usually spend much time in the same hearing room. They’ll be outlining for 

us the administration’s commitment to sustainable development, a commitment that 

recognizes the importance of working across traditional boundaries to create more 

cohesive, collaborative policy. 

One important piece of the work we have to do is to provide more transportation 

choices for families. 

Few States suffer from worse traffic congestion than Connecticut, and the lack of 

good transit options costs families more than just inconvenience. In large part due 

to congested roadways and the lack of affordable housing and transit options, Connecticut ranks 49th in the country in keeping our young people in State. Meanwhile, 

living in a transit-rich neighborhood saves money—on average, as much as ten percent of a family’s budget. This is particularly important for those living on fixed incomes or struggling to get by in a tough economy. 

Improving transportation isn’t just about making a daily commute easier. It’s 

about empowering people to access jobs and critical services, and making things just 

a little bit easier for those on a tight budget. 

It’s a problem that hurts not only quality of life for our citizens, but opportunities 

for our businesses. 

So we must improve and expand bus and rail service, providing new choices for 

families who would no longer have to drive to work and creating space on the road 
28 

for those who do. And we need to build more and better housing options near transit 

stations. 

For instance, my State has developed a program called HOMEConnecticut. It 

makes grants available for towns to plan Incentive Housing Zones for higher-density, mixed-income housing in downtowns and redeveloped brownfields, close to 

transit options and job centers. 

It’s a strategic investment in our economy, our environment, and our quality of 

life. We’ve already begun to make progress in Connecticut—and we can do more 

across the country. 

This Committee is currently drafting legislation to provide incentives for regions 

to plan future growth in a coordinated way that reduces congestion, generates goodpaying jobs, meets our environmental and energy goals, protects rural areas and 

green space, revitalizes our Main Streets and urban centers, creates and preserves 

affordable housing, and makes our communities better places to live, work, and 

raise families. Our bill will also create a competitive grant program to provide resources to some of the projects identified in this planning. 

There’s a lot we can do on this Committee, and I look forward to continuing to 

work alongside Senator Shelby and our colleagues to get it done—but we can’t do 

it alone. Just like I’ve urged the administration to do, I believe we in the Senate 

must work in a coordinated and comprehensive fashion. In particular, this committee will need to work closely with Senator Boxer’s EPW Committee and Senator 

Rockefeller’s Commerce Committee as we write the next surface transportation 

bill—legislation that I hope will eliminate stovepipes within transportation policy, 

and ensure that it helps to advance broad goals related to not just transportation, 

but community development, economic growth, energy, and the environment. 

Today, we will hear from witnesses who have already begun the important collaborative effort within the administration, public servants who are doing a tremendous job. This administration is today making a significant and welcomed commitment to sustainable development and livable communities, and I’m eager to discuss 

how we on this Committee can be partners in helping our communities plan for a 

prosperous future. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHERROD BROWN 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this important hearing. 

I also would like to thank our witnesses, Secretary LaHood, Secretary Donovan, 

and Administrator Jackson for joining us and for their hard work on these issues. 

As we sit in traffic longer, pay more for gas, and watch as scarce farmland is developed, how we manage our cities’ growth and expansion must be both an economic 

and environmental priority. 

I’ve been encouraged by the Administration’s commitment to promoting economic 

development and affordable housing options that create greener, more sustainable 

communities. 

I’m pleased to see that your agencies are working together on the Sustainable 

Communities Initiative. 

Cities across Ohio are already at the forefront of developing new and innovative 

ways to make themselves more environmentally friendly, energy efficient, accessible 

by public transit, and appealing for people of all ages and income levels. 

This sort of innovative thinking is particularly important in a manufacturing 

State like Ohio that has been hard hit by the economic downturn. 

The strategic investments that cities like Cleveland, Akron, and Springfield are 

making now in renewable energy, brownfield redevelopment, and housing rehab will 

pay off in the future. 

These projects will spur development and help create the good-paying jobs in the 

high-tech and clean energy sector that will utilize the ability of Ohio’s skilled manufacturing workers. 

These are jobs that will stay in the State rather than being outsourced abroad. 

And today, my State needs these stable, good paying jobs more than ever. 

In the 1950 census, Cleveland had a population of nearly a million, Cincinnati 

was over half a million, and 170,000 lived in Youngstown. 

Fast forward 50 years and you can see how much things have changed: Cleveland 

is now less than half its previous size, Cincinnati has lost more than 150,000, and 

today fewer than 75,000 live in Youngstown. 

Despite the population loss, these cities and others like them must maintain an 

infrastructure for a population they haven’t had in over 50 years. 
29 

It is important that the initiatives all of you are working on utilize existing infrastructure—this means redeveloping neighborhoods and downtowns, investing in 

public transit, promoting green infrastructure, and ensuring affordable housing. 

In Ohio, one of the most important revitalization projects being discussed is resuming intercity passenger rail service between many of our cities. 

Rail in Ohio is essential to connecting the Midwest with the tens of millions living 

on the eastern seaboard. Proposed corridors will create jobs for Ohio’s middle class 

workers, spur economic development in our communities, reduce the number of cars 

on the road, and help us achieve environmental goals that make our world more 

sustainable. 

However, it will take more than just investing in passenger rail to achieve the 

objective of an efficient, more comprehensive rail system. That’s why communities— 

like Columbus and Cincinnati—are looking to expand surface transportation options 

through light rail and streetcars. 

The data on economic development tied to transit is clear and cities in my State 

are ready to bring their citizens the transit options they want. 

Economic and environmental objectives need not be in conflict. Done right, our 

economic and environmental policies can lead to both sustained economic growth 

and a cleaner environment. 

I look forward to hearing more about how we can capitalize on comprehensive rail 

and transit strategies to achieve the twin goals of more sustainable communities 

and job creation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MICHAEL F. BENNET 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Shelby, thank you for holding this hearing. 

I also want to thank Secretary Donovan, Secretary LaHood, and Administrator 

Jackson for coming here today. We have heard a lot about the need to change the 

way we do business in Washington, and the collaboration between each of your 

agencies is evidence that we are beginning to remove barriers to achieving smart 

policy solutions across the country. Our success in supporting sustainable development is critical to our economic security, our environment, and our health. 

I am pleased to see the evidence of your collaborative thinking about how we can 

support and incentivize localities to work together to develop walkable, sustainable 

communities. I am particularly glad to see that the EPA has joined this effort. For 

too long, environmental sustainability has been an afterthought, rather than a guiding principal for our development. Across the West, our limited water is stretched 

between sprawling communities, and we need to do more to encourage smart, 

thoughtful planning in all aspects of development. 

However, as many of you have noted, there are substantial barriers to this kind 

of integrated development. Our housing and transportation agencies have not historically worked together, and it takes work to break down silos. From what I’ve 

heard today, you are all committed to doing that work. I look forward to seeing local 

communities reap the benefits of that cooperation, and I am willing to support you 

however I can along the way. 

I am also concerned that successful development too often fails to benefit long 

time residents of communities, who can no longer afford to stay in their neighborhood once it improves. Our current system doesn’t do enough to reward innovative 

and creative ways to transform urban, suburban, and rural communities into diverse, livable neighborhoods. I hope that as we approach reauthorization of the 

transportation bill, we can work to better incentivize this kind of growth, and I welcome your input on how we can be successful on that front. 

We do not need to convince people of the benefits of smart development, as you 

have pointed out; the demand is far exceeding the supply. I look forward to working 

with you to identify ways this Committee can support this important work. 

During my time in Denver, I was able to work with Mayor Hickenlooper whose 

vision has helped transform many neighborhoods in Denver to embody the kind of 

development we are hoping to support with these sustainable development initiatives. The Denver Housing Authority is working with the City of Denver on a transit oriented HOPE VI project at South Lincoln homes. They are working to employ 

Smart Growth Principles, Energy Efficiency and Sustainability and Multi-Modal 

transportation planning. The project is located near a light rail stop. The redevelopment of South Lincoln homes is taking a broad view of sustainability, taking into 

account factors such as access to outdoor activities for health, and new approaches 

to storm water management that address water quality treatment and storage. This 

is the kind of collaboration and development that we want to incentivize around the 

country. 
30 

The Sustainable Communities Initiative is an important step in towards facilitating planning. However, it is critical that we also fund projects like the one at 

South Lincoln Homes, and make it easier for localities like Denver to undertake 

such ambitious efforts. 

Thank you for taking the time to come here today, and thank you for your willingness to cooperate on these issues. I am encouraged by your dedication, and I look 

forward to working with all of you to make our communities even better places to 

live. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SHAUN DONOVAN 

SECRETARY, 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

JUNE 16, 2009 

Good morning, Chairman Dodd and Members of the Committee. It is a pleasure 

to be here today to speak about the critical link between housing, transportation 

and environmental policy. I want to thank you and your Committee for your leadership in developing and pushing for innovative and integrated approaches to these 

issues. And I want to thank you for the opportunity to announce a landmark agreement between the three agencies before your Committee today that includes six ‘‘livability principles’’ that will guide our work together. 

I think it is crucially important that the Federal Government speak with one 

voice on these issues, and these principles reflect that conviction. They represent a 

powerful statement of common goals, strategies, and purpose—not only for the three 

agencies you have here today, but for communities across the country whose vitality 

in the 21st century depends on our ability to work together in partnership. 

Earlier this year, I was pleased to testify before the House with my colleague, Secretary Ray LaHood from the Department of Transportation. I’m glad I have the opportunity to share the table with him again today, because since that March testimony, we’ve taken important steps to improve coordination between our departments. 

I am especially pleased to have EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson join us today as 

a partner in this effort—providing further evidence of our commitment to collaboration and coordination across the entire Federal Government. 

It has been a remarkable several months, Mr. Chairman, since I first appeared 

before you at my confirmation hearing. As I said at the time, my number one job 

was to address the Nation’s mortgage crisis. I believe we have begun to get real results with the ambitious foreclosure plan we’ve offered. Last week alone, 40,000 additional modification offers were made to borrowers, bringing the total number to 

over 190,000. But as I saw for myself when I traveled with the Chairman to Connecticut several weeks back, there remains a great deal more to be done. We still 

need the servicers to do their part in helping to keep Americans in their homes to 

complete more modifications and refinance more loans. 

But more than ever, I am convinced that solutions to the myriad challenges facing 

our housing markets must be addressed in a comprehensive way, to reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil and drive down energy costs for consumers and 

businesses alike. 

This means that HUD, in collaboration with our partner agencies, must find new, 

integrated solutions to the multi-dimensional challenges faced by cities and suburbs, 

and rural areas. This new approach will require collaboration across jurisdictional 

lines and enable metropolitan leaders to ‘‘join up’’ housing, transportation, and other 

policies to address the critical issues of affordability, competitiveness, and sustainability. 

Problem Statement 

As I mentioned in my testimony before the House Appropriations Committee, 

HUD’s central mission—ensuring that every American has access to decent, affordable housing—cannot be achieved in a vacuum. For all our housing challenges 

today, I believe that goal can be realized—but only in the broader context of housing, transportation, and energy costs and choices that American families experience 

each day in cities, suburbs and rural areas. 

The average American household now spends 34 percent of their annual budget 

on housing and 18 percent on transportation. More than half of their budgets are 

wrapped up in these two expenses alone. 
31 

1Department of Energy 2008 Building Energy Data Book—buildings account for 38 percent 

of carbon emissions, residential buildings account for 20 percent. 

For low-income working families, the impact is particularly severe—transportation constitutes almost a third of household income. The extremes can be eyeopening—the average Houston-area household spends over $11,000 per year on 

transportation. That means less money for groceries, child care, doctor’s visits. And 

in many metropolitan areas, working families are spending more on transportation 

than on housing. 

The connection between transportation options and home values is clear. As the 

recent housing downturn has shown, auto-dependent houses—that is, homes that 

virtually require the resident to have access to a car—are more vulnerable to price 

devaluation. Homes in distant or remote neighborhoods showed a greater decline in 

value, while some centrally located homes held or increased their value compared 

to regional averages. For millions of Americans, these declines can mean weakened 

retirement security, or inability to send their children off to college. 

In less-connected developments—for instance, many suburbs—while housing costs 

may be lower, transportation costs are higher—and the combination of housing and 

transportation costs now averages 57 percent of income for working families in metropolitan areas. 

The destructive effects of this mismatch between good housing choices and good 

transportation choices are particularly acute in metropolitan regions, which look 

very different from those that existed in the mid-1960s, when HUD was created and 

much of our transportation system was built. The populations of metropolitan areas 

and employment opportunities available in them are now widely dispersed, with 

only 22 percent of the jobs in the top metropolitan areas located within 3 miles of 

the central business district. That can mean less time spent with family and more 

time stuck in traffic. 

These changes have made our work at HUD that much more challenging. As decentralization has increased, the spatial mismatch between the location of affordable 

housing and employment and educational opportunities in metropolitan areas has 

worsened. Fewer low-wage families can find housing near their work, as affordable 

housing is often located in older urban and suburban areas. And businesses located 

in those areas are dependent on workers who can commute—shrinking the talent 

pool and incurring higher transportation and energy costs. 

As my colleague from EPA will tell you, decentralization and sprawl have a clear 

impact on the environment as well—through the loss of wetlands and open space, 

and increased greenhouse gas emissions. 

In recent years, we’ve made great progress in our understanding of the sources 

behind carbon emissions. As the American people are well aware, transportation accounts for a third of all greenhouse gas emissions. But I think most people would 

be surprised to learn that buildings account for almost 40 percent of our emissions— 

about half of which is through our homes. 1

In response to these trends, we have made a strong commitment to energy efficient green building through the President’s Recovery Act investments. We’re directing nearly $4 billion to public housing authorities for public housing modernizations, 

including significant green and energy-efficiency upgrades. We’re investing approximately $250 million more in energy-efficient retrofits of multi-family housing with 

project-based assistance, and emphasizing energy efficiency in Native American 

housing programs. 

We are also using the Neighborhood Stabilization Program to stabilize and revive 

neighborhoods with heavy concentrations of foreclosed properties and are using sustainability measures developed in partnership with EPA’s Smart Growth program, 

such as access to transit and use of green building criteria, to help direct that $2 

billion resource. 

Looking beyond the Recovery Act, our Fiscal Year 2010 budget proposal includes 

initiatives to support sustainable growth. We propose to create a $100 million Energy Innovation Fund that will help catalyze a home energy retrofit market through 

innovative public and private sector financing, and reengineering FHA energy efficient mortgages to increase the number of homes retrofitted for energy efficiency. 

But as HUD works to make buildings more energy efficient, offer more affordable 

housing options that increase opportunity in our communities, and help working 

families facing foreclosure or rapidly declining home values, it’s clear that we need 

to integrate our housing and transportation systems in a way that encourages smart 

land use, making our communities more resilient, more productive and more sustainable for the decades to come. 
32 

Sustainable Communities Initiative 

That is why our budget also includes a proposal for a $150 million Sustainable 

Communities Initiative, to be managed by our new Office of Sustainable Housing 

and Communities. 

As the Chairman has said, we need to coordinate climate change, energy, community development, housing and transportation policy in the most comprehensive, holistic way possible. 

I believe creating an Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities inside HUD 

to serve as a single point of contact with other Federal agencies is the best way we 

can achieve that goal. Already, these kinds of offices at our partner agencies have 

helped break down barriers to change—they have proven to be a successful model 

for interagency coordination and collaboration. First, HUD and DOT will jointly administer a $100 million fund to encourage 

metropolitan regions, via competition, to develop integrated housing, land-use, and 

transportation plans—and to use those integrated plans to drive the planning and 

decision making of localities, which will help increase transportation choices and reduce combined housing and transportation costs for American families. 

The goal of this initiative is not just to develop plans—it is to articulate a vision 

for growth tailored to specific metropolitan markets that Federal housing, transportation, and other Federal investments can support. 

Funding to these metropolitan regions would generally be used to support the development of integrated, state-of-the-art regional development plans that use the 

latest data and most sophisticated analytic, modeling, and mapping tools available. 

These efforts will benefit urban, suburban and rural communities alike. The 2007 

American Housing Survey estimates that nearly 50 percent of people who live in 

rural places today live within the boundaries of metropolitan statistical areas. This 

requires a level of integrated planning that spans jurisdictional boundaries in new 

and unprecedented ways. 

We can’t afford to be territorial about these issues any longer. 

Our fiscal year 2010 budget also includes a proposal for $40 million in grants that 

will be used to support metropolitan and local leaders in making market-shifting 

changes in local zoning and land-use rules. The grants will also assist States and 

localities to design and implement a variety of planning reforms at the local and 

regional levels. 

As we work towards an integrated planning process, we will also plan to recast 

the definition of ‘‘affordability’’ in America. With the costs of transportation now approaching or exceeding those of housing for many working families, we will work 

to jointly develop, with our partners in the Department of Transportation as well 

with EPA, a housing and transportation affordability index. 

Just as a potential car buyer can see on the window sticker how energy efficient 

an automobile is, we need the same thing for our homes and our buildings. An affordability index will empower consumers and businesses alike with the information 

they need to make informed choices about where they and how they live, and in 

the process helping to create a more dynamic, efficient marketplace. 

That is why we intend to share all this data, research, and evaluation with the 

private sector to catalyze innovation and maximize market efficiency. 

We will also conduct an intensive review of our respective programs to ascertain 

how to support the marriage of housing and transportation, and to emphasize location efficiency in all that we do. 

In housing programs, for example, perhaps we can give preference to projects that 

offer participants choices for public transit, employment opportunities, and other important advantages. We have begun to do that with the second round of Neighborhood Stabilization Program funding, as I described earlier. I intend to subject all 

of our programs—including FHA—to a rigorous review that determines how we can 

reorient the business of our department in support of this integrated planning. 

Finally, we are also establishing a jointly administered research and evaluation 

effort. Our budget proposal requests $10 million to support this research. This historic effort will aggressively engage on joint data development, information platforms, analytic tools, and research to better track housing and transportation expenditures by location. It will establish standardized and effective performance 

measures and engage in rigorous analysis of the transit-oriented development 

projects already in existence to identify best practices. And it will evaluate location 

efficient mortgages and energy efficient mortgages. 

Partnership Update—Livability Principles 

I’m also pleased to report that since March, when we announced our agreement 

with DOT, we have made significant progress. Teams from our agencies are meeting 

on a weekly basis, and addressing each element of the partnership. 
33 

2 A Study of Land Use, Transportation, Air Quality, and Health in King County, WA. Lawrence Frank and Company, Inc. 

Further, we are happy to announce that EPA is now a full partner in this effort. 

They will work with HUD and DOT to address water infrastructure issues, expand 

technical assistance to State and local governments, return brownfield sites to productive use, and address hazardous waste and other barriers to reinvestment in 

older communities. 

As a result of our agencies’ work, I am pleased to join with my DOT and EPA 

colleagues to announce a uniform statement of livability principles. For the first 

time, these principles provide a uniform set of guidelines for each agency to formulate and implement policies and programs. More importantly, they mean that we 

will all be working off the same playbook to better serve American families who expect more affordable and sustainable choices in their communities. 

For the first time, the Federal government will speak with one voice on housing, 

environmental and transportation policy. 

The first principle—Providing More Transportation Choices—addresses our need 

to expand the options available to American families, whether commuting to work, 

dropping children off at school, or running errands. It is no secret that providing 

safe, reliable and affordable transportation choices is essential to making a home 

livable. Expanding transportation choices by making public transit, biking, and 

walking viable options is also a key strategy towards reducing our dependence on 

foreign oil, improving the quality of the air we breathe, limiting the threat of greenhouse gas pollution and protecting the public health. 

The second principle—Promoting Equitable, Affordable Housing—is at the heart 

of HUD’s mission. A livable community must be both equitable and affordable. 

Livability is about more than just being efficient—we must also be inclusive. 

In order for our neighborhoods to thrive, our regions to grow, and our Nation to 

prosper, we must support communities that provide opportunities for people of all 

ages, incomes, races and ethnicities to live, work, learn, and play together. 

The third principle—Increasing Economic Competitiveness—pinpoints the need to 

coordinate housing, transportation and environmental policy to make us more competitive and productive. Our Nation’s ability to compete in a global economy is dependent upon how quickly and efficiently we can connect our labor force to education and employment opportunities. That mission depends on efficient housing 

and transportation patterns that ensure the timely delivery of goods and services. 

The fourth principle—Supporting Existing Communities—identifies the need to 

support community revitalization, build upon existing public investments, and preserve our Nation’s rural land. 

This has been a historic role for HUD, through our block grant investments in 

cities, counties and rural areas. It makes no sense to ignore the vast resources ready 

to be rediscovered in America’s cities and towns. And when we take advantage of 

these cost-effective opportunities to invest in our existing neighborhoods, we help 

mitigate the loss of open space, preserve farmlands and reduce commuting burdens 

on working families. 

The fifth principle—Expanding Partnerships and Leveraging Investment—focuses 

on increasing the effectiveness of American government at all levels. We want to 

boost the capacity of local communities to more effectively plan for future growth, 

by addressing housing, transportation, and other critical issues through coordinated 

work, and support the ability of local communities to think and act regionally. 

Finally, the last principle—Valuing Communities and Neighborhoods—brings the 

entire effort together. We must ensure that Federal investments support cohesive, 

safe, healthy and walkable communities, whether in cities, suburbs, or rural areas. 

Research shows that people who live in walkable communities are more active and 

less likely to be overweight, thus improving their health. 2 As I said at the outset, 

each of the Federal partners represented today, while we manage separate programs, must be dedicated to the single principle of building strong, sustainable communities. 

So we have our playbook, Mr. Chairman: strong evidence that by working collaboratively across agencies—housing, transportation, and environment—we can better 

rise to the challenges before us, and implement the sort of innovative solutions that 

the American people deserve. Solutions that will allow us to protect our environment, support their mobility, and deliver safe, decent, affordable homes in which to 

live. 

But the real test of our commitment will be in putting the principles into action. 

I propose to do that in several ways. 

First, over the next few months I intend to implement a process at HUD, led by 

Deputy Secretary Sims, and our new Office of Sustainable Housing and Commu-
34 

nities, to engage every program and every office, at headquarters and in the field, 

to identify the barriers that they encounter, whether institutional, regulatory, or 

statutory, in implementing these principles. I look forward to working with you to 

determine the best way to break down these barriers—be it through legislation or 

regulatory reform. 

I will also be asking for their ideas, suggestions and recommendations about how 

we can incorporate these livability principles throughout our programs. I will also 

reach out to our partners, and work with them, to adopt these principles as they 

invest in their communities. 

This must be an inclusive process—and an inclusive process depends on listening. 

Second, I will ask our program offices to incorporate these principles in HUD’s 

next Annual Performance Plan, and our annual Management Plan, which represents the operating statement for the Department, both here in Washington and 

in 82 field offices around the country. Our field offices are a unique and important 

resource for bringing these principles to life in the communities we serve. 

Third, we look forward to sharing with you the performance measures that we are 

developing for each of these principles—so that they can be measured in tangible 

outcomes on the ground. 

As I told you during my confirmation, Mr. Chairman, I’m a numbers guy. I believe 

in evidence-based government and accountability. I’ve directed our new Transformation Office to develop strong performance measures for HUD’s programs, and 

I expect nothing less as we turn these principles into policy. 

These performance measures will form the criteria for measuring the success of 

our proposed $150 million FY 2010 Sustainable Communities Initiative. We will also 

look at ways that these can be used to measure the results of other HUD programs. 

So I’m optimistic—that with these ideas, these new partnerships and the leadership of my colleagues here today—and you as well, Mr. Chairman—we are poised 

to build the stronger, more resilient, and sustainable communities Americans want 

and need in the 21st century. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee—I look forward to answering your questions. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RAY LAHOOD 

SECRETARY, 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

JUNE 16, 2009 

Chairman Dodd and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity 

to appear before you today to discuss the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) activities in support of livable communities, comprehensive planning, and sustainable 

development. 

The President has made livable communities a key aspect of his agenda and the 

Vice President has also highlighted it in his Middle Class initiative. How a community is designed—including the layout of the roads, transit systems, and walkways— 

has a huge impact on its residents. Transportation and housing are the two largest 

expenses for the average American household. Reducing the need for motor vehicle 

trips and providing access to transportation choices can address this cost and lower 

the average household expenditure on transportation, freeing up money for housing, 

education, and savings. 

The Surface Transportation Authorization provides us with an opportunity to incorporate these important priorities into the Nation’s transportation policy. My Department looks forward to working with members of Congress to make livable communities a centerpiece of the new authorization. I’ll discuss that in greater detail 

later. I would like to first discuss the efforts we are undertaking in advance of reauthorization to foster livable communities. 

First, I am pleased to announce that Administrator Jackson of the Environmental 

Protection Agency has joined the Sustainable Communities Partnership between 

Secretary Donovan of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 

and me to help American families gain better access to affordable housing, more 

transportation options, and healthier communities. This partnership will ensure 

that these housing and transportation goals are achieved while also better protecting the environment, promoting equitable development, and helping to address 

the challenges of climate change. 

Each agency brings particular expertise to the partnership that can help institute 

real improvements in American communities. The agencies have developed the fol-
35 

lowing principles that will direct the collective efforts for implementing this program: 

• Provide more transportation choices. Develop safe, reliable, and economical 

transportation choices to decrease household transportation costs, reduce our 

Nations’ dependence on foreign oil, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions, and promote public health. 

• Promote equitable, affordable housing. Expand location- and energy-efficient 

housing choices for people of all ages, incomes, races and ethnicities to increase 

mobility and lower the combined cost of housing and transportation. 

• Enhance economic competitiveness. Improve economic competitiveness through 

reliable and timely access to employment centers, educational opportunities, 

services and other basic needs by workers as well as expanded business access 

to markets. 

• Support existing communities. Target Federal funding toward existing communities—through such strategies as transit oriented, mixed-use development and 

land recycling—to increase community revitalization, improve the efficiency of 

public works investments, and safeguard rural landscapes. 

• Coordinate policies and leverage investment. Align Federal policies and funding 

to remove barriers to collaboration, leverage funding and increase the accountability and effectiveness of all levels of government to plan for future growth, 

including making smart energy choices such as locally generated renewable energy. 

• Value communities and neighborhoods. Enhance the unique characteristics of 

all communities by investing in healthy, safe, and walkable neighborhoods— 

rural, urban, or suburban. 

The agencies are working together to identify how we can align our current programs to support these principles. We are considering what the critical elements of 

a livability plan are. We are looking at what performance measures can be used to 

determine whether the policy objectives have been achieved and examining whether 

data exists to support the measures. 

The second area where the Department has already begun to emphasize the importance of livable communities was through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). ARRA created a discretionary fund of $1.5 billion available 

through September 30, 2011, for the Department to make grants on a competitive 

basis for capital investments in surface transportation infrastructure projects that 

will have a significant impact on the Nation, a metropolitan area, or a region. Selection criteria were recently established for these Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Discretionary Grants. Projects that promote 

greater mobility, a cleaner environment and more livable communities will receive 

priority over those that do not. This funding will open the door to many new innovative and cutting-edge transportation projects. 

Applications will be accepted until September 15, 2009, with awards to be announced no later than February 17, 2010. The TIGER Discretionary Grant program 

provides the opportunity to highlight projects that address livability and that make 

significant improvements to communities and regions. 

Why Livability Is Important 

Our goal is to build livable communities, where safe, convenient, and affordable 

transportation is available to all people, regardless of what mode they use. For the 

past 50 years, most government investment in transportation has undermined this 

goal. 

In most communities, jobs, homes, and other destinations are located apart and 

far away from one another, necessitating a separate car ride for every errand. Coordinating transportation and land-use decisions and investments enhances the effectiveness of both and increases the efficiency of Federal transportation spending. 

Strategies that support mixed-use development, mixed-income communities and 

multiple transportation options help to reduce traffic congestion, pollution and energy use. 

A new focus on livability can help transform the way transportation serves the 

American people and the contribution it makes to the quality of life in our communities. Transportation can play an enhanced role in creating safer, healthier communities with the strong economies needed to support our families. As the population 

increases, we must identify new strategies to move people and goods within communities and throughout the Nation. Integrating transportation planning with community development and expanding transportation options will not only improve 
36 

connectivity and influence how people choose to travel, but also lower transportation 

costs, reduce dependence on foreign oil and decrease emissions. 

Livable communities are mixed-use neighborhoods with highly connected streets 

promoting mobility for all users, whether they are children walking or biking to 

school or commuters riding transit or driving motor vehicles. Benefits include improved traffic flow, shorter trip lengths, safer streets for pedestrians and cyclists, 

lower greenhouse gas emissions, reduced dependence on fossil fuels, increased tripchaining, and independence for those who prefer not to or are unable to drive. In 

addition, investing in a ‘‘complete street’’ concept stimulates private-sector economic 

activity by increasing the viability of street-level retail small businesses and professional services, creating housing opportunities and extending the usefulness of 

school and transit facilities. 

Mixed-use, compact development can result in an increase in walking and biking 

to destinations of short distances. Currently, American adults travel 25 million 

miles a day in trips of a half-mile or less, of which nearly 60 percent are vehicle 

trips. A 2005 Seattle study found that residents traveled 26 percent fewer vehicle 

miles in neighborhoods where land uses were mixed and streets were better connected. In these areas, nonauto travel was easier than in neighborhoods that were 

more dispersed and less connected. If a large share of the travelling public could 

walk or bike for short trips, it is estimated that the Nation could save over one million gallons of gas and millions of dollars in motor fuel costs per day. Reduced use 

of vehicles for these short trips will also lower emissions, as these are particularly 

polluting trips. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has extensively 

studied the benefits of physical activity like walking and biking, finding that it can 

improve the health of Americans and lower medical costs. A study in 2003 found 

that people who live in more sprawling areas generally weigh more and are more 

likely to have higher blood pressure than those that live in more compact areas. The 

average weight of individuals who live in the most sprawling areas can be as much 

as 6 pounds more than their counterparts in dense urban areas with access to more 

active transportation options. 

The elements of livability are important to both urban and rural communities. A 

transportation system that provides reliable, safe access to jobs, education, health 

care, and goods and services is every bit as important to rural communities as it 

is to urban areas. Remote locations present unique challenges to mobility, including 

ensuring access for older citizens to services and activities. Providing transportation 

choices can increase community mobility; but the types of options in rural areas 

might be different, focusing on a variety of intercity transportation investments. As 

economic development is undertaken in rural areas, focusing that development in 

town and commercial centers can increase access to necessities and enable one-stopshopping for many residents, thus reducing fuel costs and time on the road and enhancing a sense of community. 

For example, in Cheyenne, Wyoming, the City, County, and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) developed PlanCheyenne which is an integrated community master plan that defines the Cheyenne area future growth. The plan places 

specific emphasis on integrating three major elements of the community’s planning 

efforts: land-use, transportation, and parks and recreation and open space. The 

transportation component of the plan promotes developing mixed-use and activity 

centers along a network of principal arterials. Incidentally, EPA worked with Cheyenne to engage residents in developing policy options to implement PlanCheyenne’s 

vision. 

Livability incorporates the concept of collaborative decision making. By involving 

the public early in the planning process and coordinating transportation activities 

with other activities related to healthy, sustainable communities, we improve the 

quality of life for all Americans. Collaborative, interdisciplinary decisions get good 

results, particularly more public support and reduced costs and time to complete 

transportation projects. 

Automobile congestion impacts our communities and quality of life. According to 

the 2007 Urban Mobility report prepared by the Texas Transportation Institute, 

traffic congestion continues to worsen in American cities of all sizes, creating a nearly $80 billion annual drain on the U.S. economy in the form of 4.2 billion lost hours 

resulting from travel delay and 2.9 billion gallons of wasted fuel. The report notes 

that congestion caused the average peak-period traveler to spend an extra 38 hours 

of travel time and consume and additional 26 gallons of fuel annually, amounting 

to a cost of $710 per traveler. Although recent data suggest that travel, as measured 

by vehicle-miles traveled, has been less in recent months, we nevertheless need to 

give that time and money back to our economy and our citizens. 

Ways to greatly improve the efficiency of the entire transportation network include expanded and improved transit services; increased ridesharing; variable road 
37 

pricing, managing freight movement and other demand management strategies; and 

managing our road and transit systems better through Intelligent Transportation 

Systems, and other traffic flow improvements. Other options include integrated 

transportation, land-use and housing planning policies that encourage mixed-use, 

compact developments that reduce the need for motor vehicle trips and support 

more transportation options to reduce travel distances and time through cities is a 

very important part of livability. 

The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) reports that increasing 

numbers of Americans took transit—an estimated 10.7 billion trips in 2008, the 

highest level of ridership in 52 years and a modern ridership record. And this trend 

continued, despite falling gas prices and an economic recession towards the end of 

the year. Increased transit ridership is having a real impact on the environment. 

There are great examples of communities that are implementing the concepts of 

livability and are planning for a positive future. For example, the Envision Utah 

Public/Private Partnership—partially funded by EPA—was formed to guide the development of a broadly and publicly supported Quality Growth Strategy, the Envision Utah Plan. This plan guides development and creates growth strategies that 

protect Utah’s environment, economic strengths and provides a sustainable quality 

of life for its residents. Some of the major goals of this plan include increased mobility and number of transportation choices while providing a wide range of housing 

choices for Utah’s residents. 

It was a priority for those involved in developing this plan to ensure that families 

could live near one another throughout their lives. This is only possible in an area 

where seniors can get around even when they have to curb driving. And it is necessary to have a range of housing choices that support people at all stages of life: 

apartments for young people just starting out, condos or small houses for young couples’ first homes, larger homes for families and smaller homes again for those who 

no longer can or desire to take care of a large home. When there is a mix of housing 

types in a walkable neighborhood, the Envision Utah effort found that it is more 

possible for grandparents to live within walking distance of their grandchildren. 

Creating livable communities will result in improved quality of life for all Americans and create a more efficient and more accessible transportation network that 

services the needs of individual communities. Fostering the concept of livability in 

transportation projects and programs will help America’s neighborhoods become 

safer, healthier, and more vibrant. 

Importance of Federal Transportation Investment to Livable Communities 

Federal investments in transportation systems and infrastructure, including aviation, highways, rail, bus, ferries, and other public transportation, have been vitally 

important to the Nation’s fastest-growing metropolitan areas, small- and mid-sized 

cities, and in rural areas. These systems create links between home, school, work, 

health care, recreation areas, and other important destinations. Since 1984, the 

number of cities with publicly funded passenger rail service has more than doubled. 

A decade ago, two out of every five residents in rural and small urban communities 

did not have access to public transportation. Since then, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has been instrumental in bringing new public transportation options 

to dozens of these communities. Tribal areas also benefit from FTA investments that 

afford greater accessibility and mobility options. 

Federal transportation investment has increased mobility and accessibility 

throughout the country. Businesses benefit from easier access to suppliers, a larger 

labor pool, and expanded consumer markets. These factors can reduce transportation costs both for business-related passenger travel and for the movement of commercial freight. Access to larger numbers of workers, consumers, and suppliers also 

increases the attractiveness of a community to businesses. These investments, combined with initiatives aimed at making the most efficient use of existing capacity, 

will measurably improve quality of life in America. 

Changes in demographics, shifts in land-use patterns, and the emergence of new 

job markets require different approaches to managing mobility, particularly for people who may not be able to use existing transportation services due to age, disability, location, or other factors. Federal funding for public transportation has provided a framework around which nine Federal departments are collaborating to deliver community-based transportation services under various authorities. These 

services, which may be operated by private nonprofit groups and community organizations, offer a lifeline to persons with disabilities, older Americans, and individuals 

and families who do not possess automobiles. 

The Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program was established to address the unique transportation challenges faced by welfare recipients and low-income persons seeking to obtain and maintain employment. Many new entry-level 
38 

jobs are located in suburban areas, and low-income individuals have difficulty accessing these jobs from their inner city, urban, or rural neighborhoods. In addition, 

many entry level-jobs require working late at night or on weekends when conventional transit services are either reduced or nonexistent. A report published a few 

years ago by APTA noted that small urban and rural communities may be particularly at risk, as nearly 2/3 of the residents in these areas have few, if any, transportation options. APTA found that 41 percent of the residents of small urban and 

rural communities have no transit available to connect them to jobs and services, 

while another 25 percent lived in areas with below average transit services. 

Transit-oriented, mixed-use development has the potential to provide efficient and 

convenient options for employers, developers, young professionals and families in 

many large and small cities around the United States. It also allows people to age 

in place, and in the same communities as their children and grandchildren, Transitoriented development also has the potential to contribute significantly to the revitalization of downtown districts, foster walkable neighborhoods, and offer an alternative to urban and suburban sprawl and automobile-focused commuting. Moreover, 

transit-oriented development (TOD) in areas with existing transit service can turn 

subway stops and commuter rail stations into hubs for mixed-use development 

where workers can walk (or connect by a short bus ride) to jobs, housing and services. Over the past year, these communities have not seen as high foreclosure rates 

as their car-dependent counterparts. 

Linkage Between Transportation, Housing, and Livable Communities 

Clearly the linkage between public transportation and urban development is crucial, particularly when it comes to low-income housing. Over the past 5 years, HUD 

and DOT’s FTA have explored opportunities to coordinate housing and transportation planning and investment decision making. A June 2003 roundtable hosted by 

the National Academy of Sciences focused on possible data sharing and development 

of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) platform by the two agencies. 

Following the roundtable, HUD and DOT entered into a June 2005 Interagency 

Agreement (IAA) to help communities realize the potential demand for transit-oriented housing. The IAA was aimed at closing the gap between the projected demand 

for housing near transit in particular metropolitan regions, and realizing the development of that housing in proximity to new or existing transit corridors in these 

regions. 

The IAA provided support for a jointly funded research study on Realizing the Potential: Expanding Housing Opportunities Near Transit. The report, published in 

April 2007 by the Center for Transit Oriented Development, included five case studies examining the role of public transportation in the location of affordable housing 

in Boston, Charlotte, Denver, Minneapolis–St. Paul, and Portland. More recently, 

DOT and HUD released a report to Congress in September 2008 on Better Coordination of Transportation and Housing Programs. This report outlines strategies to 

continue and expand coordination in the areas of mixed-income and affordable housing choices near transit. 

In addition, DOT and HUD have been working as partners to continue development of coordinated, integrated strategies, methods and policies to promote the role 

of public transportation in affordable housing. Key among these policies and strategies is the integration of transportation and housing planning activities. 

Presently, transportation planning is carried out at the regional level in metropolitan and urbanized areas or at the State level for rural and nonurbanized communities, whereas housing planning is conducted at the local municipal/county level. 

Bringing these disparate groups together to integrate planning of housing development and transportation improvements is fundamental to locating new and preserving existing affordable housing in proximity to public transportation. This effort 

will include: 

• Outreach to and capacity building for stakeholders; 

• Convening of expert roundtables and other forums; 

• Development of appropriate tools to support location efficiencies; 

• Promotion of incentives for housing related transit-oriented development within 

FTA programs; 

• Identification of appropriate research topics; 

• Development of performance measures, information systems, and reporting 

mechanisms; and 

• Development of a Best Practices Manual—a multi-scenario ‘‘how-to’’ manual for 

promoting development of mixed-income housing near transit, to be published 

by the end of the year. 
39 

DOT and HUD are developing a work plan for this effort, which will provide for 

briefings between the two agencies to better understand each other’s programs and 

how their community development activities can be aligned for greater efficiencies 

of Federal investments. 

The Department has engaged its Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 

to provide technical and logistical support, and is using FTA’s regional offices in this 

effort to facilitate better coordination with our Federal partners, MPOs, State departments of transportation, and grantees in communities where the planning is actually carried out. 

Finally, the Government Accountability Office is completing an examination of 

this effort in both agencies. The Department will certainly ensure that recommendations are appropriately acted upon when the report is published. Although limited 

to affordable housing, the results of this DOT–HUD effort will greatly influence and 

support the Department’s broader Livability Communities Initiative and the DOT– 

HUD–EPA Partnership. 

DOT has also initiated a Federal Interagency Working Group on Transportation, 

Land-Use, and Climate Change in which HUD and EPA are participating. The goal 

of this 13-agency working group is to identify opportunities to better align Federal 

programs and resources to achieve greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions through landuse solutions. The working group is currently developing performance metrics, research, and data needs for several areas where the Federal Government can begin 

to align efforts to address GHGs. The results of this work will greatly benefit DOT’s 

livability efforts. 

DOT’s Livable Communities Initiative 

I am committed to improving the livability of our Nation’s communities and, in 

fact, shortly after I was confirmed as Secretary of Transportation, I charged the Department’s Policy Office with developing a DOT-wide Livable Communities Initiative. I am pleased to note that DOT already had numerous programs that foster livability—everything from funding for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, ensuring safety, protecting and enhancing the human and natural environment, connecting remote communities to needed services, to reducing the impact of freight transportation, congestion mitigation, and traffic management. 

The ARRA also provided opportunities to promote livability. States must spend 

three percent of their allocation on the Transportation Enhancement Program, 

which is a primary source of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure funding. The remainder of the ‘‘highway’’ money is flexible, permitting States and metropolitan 

areas to spend this funding on roads, bridges, transit, bike and pedestrian infrastructure, freight and passenger rail, or ports. 

Additional actions would enhance transportation’s contribution to strong and connected communities. First, the range of transportation choices available to all Americans—including transit, walking, bicycling, and improved connectivity for various 

modes—must be expanded. American businesses must also have effective transportation to meet their logistical needs so that they can continue to provide jobs for 

their surrounding communities. All segments of the population must have access to 

safe and convenient transportation options to get to work, housing, medical services, 

schools, shopping and other essential activities including recreation. Just as important, our transportation investment decisions need to be consistent with policies 

concerning greenhouse gas emissions. And efforts must be renewed to rescue other 

adverse effects of transportation on all aspects of the natural and human environment. 

Although we are working to finalize the details, my goal through DOT’s Livable 

Communities Initiative is to enhance the economic and social well-being of all Americans by creating and maintaining a safe, reliable, intermodal and accessible transportation network that enhances choices for transportation users, providing easy access to employment opportunities and services. The initiative will need to build on 

innovative ways of doing business that promote mobility and enhance the unique 

characteristics of our neighborhoods, communities, and regions. 

Under the Livable Communities Initiative, my intent is to: 

• Better integrate transportation and land-use planning to inform decision making about public investments; 

• Foster multi-modal transportation systems and effective multi-modal connections; 

• Provide more safe transportation options to improve access to housing, jobs, 

health care, businesses, recreation, public services, and social activities; 

• Increase public participation in coordinating transportation and housing investments; 
40 

• Improve public health by reducing noise and air pollution emissions and by increasing opportunities for physical activity through walking and bicycling; 

• Plan for the unique transportation needs of individual communities; and better 

accommodate the needs of our aging population. 

Reauthorization of Surface Transportation Programs 

The current authorization for Federal surface transportation programs—the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA–LU)—expires at the end of Fiscal Year 2009. The timing is such that 

we have a window of opportunity to think differently about transportation and propose bold, new approaches to improve the livability of our Nation’s communities as 

part of reauthorization. 

Whatever legislative approach is pursued, we will be taking a hard look at potential changes to metropolitan and statewide transportation planning processes to ensure that they improve livability. We believe it is important to include the six principles agreed upon in the DOT–HUD–EPA partnership to guide our authorization 

discussions. 

The ongoing collaboration with our partners at HUD and EPA will improve the 

linkage between housing, water, and transportation investments and is a piece of 

the overall effort to combine land-use and transportation planning. This shift in development of transportation plans can provide for much more efficient Federal 

spending and can ensure a holistic approach to transportation systems—breaking 

away from the planning silos between transportation and land-use plans. 

The Administration’s surface transportation reauthorization proposal is still under 

development, and I look forward to discussing all the options for making livability 

a real centerpiece of the final proposal. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to working with the Congress, HUD, EPA, and the transportation community to expand livability within our communities, including the connections between housing, transportation, and the environment. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LISA P. JACKSON 

ADMINISTRATOR, 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

JUNE 16, 2009 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am delighted to appear before 

you today with my colleagues Secretaries LaHood and Donovan to discuss our Agencies’ work on sustainable development. Mr. Chairman, I salute you for your longtime interest and work on the issues we are here to discuss today. 

We are happy to announce EPA’s entry into the Partnership for Sustainable Communities. I thank Secretaries Donovan and LaHood for their leadership on this 

issue. EPA has been working for years on issues of smart growth and this Partnership represents a real leap forward for not only our agencies, but for the American 

people. 

The Partnership recognizes that the work of our agencies is connected. In designing or improving our communities to be sustainable for the long term, mobility, 

housing, and environmental issues are entirely interconnected. Working across 

agencies gives us an opportunity to share knowledge, resources, and strategies that 

will improve public health and the environment, cut costs and harmful emissions 

from transportation, and build more affordable homes in communities all over the 

country. 

Most importantly, this Partnership acknowledges that the missions of our three 

agencies do not exist in separate, distinct bubbles. Where you live affects how you 

get around, and how you get around often affects where you live. Both decisions affect our environment. In order to have the most effective greenhouse gas reduction 

strategy, we should have a strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled. In order to provide truly affordable housing, we should take into account what residents must pay 

for transportation, energy, and water. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, our presence together here today 

demonstrates to you and the American people that we are jointly committed to the 

Sustainability Principles that have been previously discussed. This partnership will 

help advance each of our missions. It represents a new approach for Federal agencies. Our desire to work together on these issues is real. 
41 

There has been a long debate in this Nation about the appropriate Federal role 

in relation to land-use decisions. While it is true that development decisions are, 

and should be, primarily made at the local, State, and tribal level, it is equally true 

that Federal policies, rules, and spending influence development patterns. We have 

an interest—indeed, an obligation—to ensure that our actions do not favor development that adversely affects the environment and public health. 

When development contributes to the pollution of our waterways, dirties the air 

we breathe, contaminates our drinking water, or disproportionally harms disadvantaged communities, then it is a Federal responsibility in general—and specifically 

an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) responsibility—to protect Americans 

from these problems. 

If we are smarter about how we grow, we can make America’s big cities, small 

towns and rural communities more resilient to the economic and environmental 

challenges facing America. Through this partnership, our agencies will work together to help make sure our Nation has: 

• Well-designed, energy-efficient, and affordable housing to meet the needs of 

Americans regardless of their income, race, or geographic location; 

• An integrated transportation, land-use, and environmental planning system 

with more options for reaching jobs, schools, parks, medical care, and other 

basic needs; and 

• Waterways that are clean and safe for drinking, swimming, and fishing, air that 

is safe to breathe, and land that is free of toxic contamination. 

We have created a framework that will guide the cooperative development of policies, regulations, spending priorities, and legislative proposals. 

Around the country, communities are looking for ways to grow that: 

• Use less land and energy; 

• Provide safe, affordable housing options for people of all incomes and at all 

stages of life; 

• Make it easier for people to get to their destinations on foot, by bike, or by public transit; and 

• Direct growth to developed areas with existing infrastructure. 

Together, these development strategies emphasize environmental, economic, cultural, and social sustainability. Our collective implementation of those policies at 

State, local, and tribal levels will assure that we accommodate our Nation’s anticipated growth in smarter, more sustainable ways. 

Vibrant and prosperous towns and cities will attract the residents and business 

investment needed for robust growth. When growth flows naturally to these places, 

it makes it easier to protect environmental resources such as forests and wetlands, 

and helps preserve wildlife, farms, rural landscapes, and scenic beauty. 

Smart growth principles are equally important in urban, suburban and rural 

areas. A few weeks ago I visited Wyoming, where EPA’s Smart Growth Program 

helped Governor Dave Freudenthal initiate a statewide conversation about the effects of the State’s energy boom on its environmental resources—how it was affecting the water quality in Wyoming’s renowned fishing rivers or encroaching on wildlife areas prized by hunters. In one of the least densely populated States in the Nation, residents sometimes found themselves snarled in traffic. The jobs were not in 

places the employees could afford to live. Smart growth approaches to problems like 

these are just as relevant in small town rural America as they are in New York, 

New Haven, Birmingham, or Houston. 

Climate Change 

At EPA, our focus will be on encouraging smart growth approaches to protect 

human health and the environment. This includes using smart growth as a tool to 

combat climate change. 

Combined, buildings and transportation contribute 63 percent of our Nation’s 

greenhouse gas emissions. Smarter growth, combined with green building techniques, can significantly reduce that number. 

Climate change is no longer an academic discussion. We don’t have the luxury of 

a far-off day of reckoning. The world’s leading scientists predict noticeable, perhaps 

even drastic, changes within our lifetime. These changes will only get worse the 

longer we delay taking action. 

We already see: 

• More drought in some regions, which may increase the length and severity of 

fire seasons; 
42 

• Stronger storms, which not only increase the risk of flooding but can overwhelm 

overtaxed sewer infrastructure; and 

• Sea-level rise, which may have significant ramifications for the millions of 

Americans who live along our coasts. 

We must start adapting to these potential changes now, but we also need to take 

more action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to lessen the severity of these 

changes over the long term. 

EPA is taking aggressive action to reduce our impact on the climate while 

strengthening our economy. The President has committed to doubling within the 

next 3 years our use of clean energy. And, we have set an ambitious goal of cutting 

more than 80 percent of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050. 

• Renewable fuels will help us get there. We are working to strengthen standards 

that will increase the amount of renewable fuels that will be used in transportation. 

• Greener buildings will help us get there. EPA is addressing the many environmental and health impacts of buildings—partnering with key players to improve green building standards, support needed research, provide better information to the public and pilot better practices in the field, while taking the lead 

in greening our own facilities. In 2008, EPA helped HUD build over 6,000 ENERGY STAR homes for the affordable housing community. 

• Alternative sources of power will help us get there. The EPA Green Power Partnership program works with more than 1,000 large and small U.S. companies, 

offering advice, technical support, and tools to assist in the purchase of renewable energy. 

• More efficient cars will help us get there. Later this year, working with the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

EPA intends to propose the first-ever car and SUV greenhouse gas emissions 

standards for 2012–2016 that will greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions 

from new cars. 

But, even all of these approaches—as important as they are—will not be enough. 

Transportation uses 70 percent of the oil consumed in this country and roughly 20 

percent of U.S. CO2 emissions come from passenger vehicles. More efficient vehicles 

and cleaner fuels simply will not be enough to meet our greenhouse gas reduction 

and energy independence goals. Reducing the number of miles we drive must be 

part of the solution. 

There’s no need to wait for some technological breakthrough to reduce the amount 

of driving we do. The technology to help people drive less exists today—it’s called 

smart growth. We know that investing in public transportation, making communities more walkable, and creating more housing near job centers results in less 

driving. 

Clean Air 

It is also critical to build on the progress in air quality we’ve seen since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1990—and smarter growth can help get us there. As 

we move forward, the continued integration of air quality, land-use, and transportation planning will be important. 

For over 30 years, EPA has been the lead Federal agency in coordinating State 

and local air quality planning for all emissions sources, including transportation. 

EPA helps State and local agencies calculate emissions benefits from many of the 

strategies that support sustainable communities—better transit, increased carpooling, and other travel options. These resources can help meet Clean Air Act air 

quality requirements and build better, more livable communities. 

EPA has worked in partnership with DOT for over 15 years to better integrate 

air quality, land-use, and transportation planning through the Clean Air Act conformity program. The transportation conformity program requires State and local 

agencies to regularly evaluate the impact of new transportation activities on air 

quality. Transit and sustainable planning play a key role in helping meet State air 

quality goals. 

Atlantic Station Redevelopment 

But it is important that in addition to talking about lofty goals, we can show the 

impact in a real world example: Atlantic Station is a 138-acre redevelopment project 

in Atlanta, Georgia. The former Atlantic Steel Mill site that—with EPA’s help—was 

reclaimed and redesigned to help residents and workers significantly reduce the 

amount they need to drive. One of the largest brownfield redevelopments in the 

U.S., this national model for smart growth includes 6 million square feet of LEED- 
43 

certified office space, 2 million square feet of retail and entertainment space, and 

1,000 hotel rooms, and it will have between 3,000 and 5,000 residential units upon 

full build-out. 

A shuttle system that carries 1 million people a year circulates between a commuter rail stop and Atlantic Station. Space is reserved for light rail service in anticipation of future transit investments. Residents of Atlantic Station drive an average of less than 14 miles per day, compared to 32 miles a day for the average Atlantan. 

Although Atlantic Station is an example of a project that was developed, in part, 

to support State and local air quality goals, it was also good for water quality. Because it is compact, Atlantic Station used much less land than a conventional development with the same amount of housing and commercial space. This efficient land 

use reduced annual stormwater runoff by almost 20 million cubic feet a year. 

Water Infrastructure 

One of my priorities is to restore and protect the quality of America’s waterways. 

The impressive results from Atlantic Station show that well-planned development 

can be part of the solution to water quality problems and is a core quality of sustainable communities. Another key aspect of sustainable communities is making 

sure that we have reliable and safe water infrastructure. Having cost-effective and 

reliable drinking water, wastewater treatment, and stormwater management systems is integral to protecting our health, economic vitality and environment. 

EPA is poised to significantly increase its funding for wastewater infrastructure 

through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF). The FY 2010 Budget requests $2.4 billion, a $1.7 billion increase over FY 2009 levels, for the Clean Water 

SRF. This additional funding will help communities meet the challenges of upgrading aging wastewater and stormwater infrastructure. As part of our partnership 

with DOT and HUD, we will work with States and tribes to harmonize water infrastructure investments with transportation and housing investments to promote 

smarter growth. 

EPA will encourage States to direct additional funds to cost-effective, environmentally preferable approaches to infrastructure planning, design, repair, replacement and management that also promote more sustainable communities. EPA will 

provide guidance and technical assistance to States to encourage them to use Clean 

Water State Revolving Funds for projects using green infrastructure and low-impact 

development approaches to stormwater management. 

In addition to improving water quality, the EPA’s Clean Water State Revolving 

Fund can support expanded housing choices and efficient transportation. For example, in my State of New Jersey, the State provides lower interest loans for water 

infrastructure projects that serve developments that mix housing with retail, offices, 

and other amenities and provide residents with transportation choices, such as transit villages. 

In rural areas, New Jersey focuses on replacing failing septic systems rather than 

building expensive new sewer systems that can be catalysts for sprawl. New Jersey 

has shown how Federal funding can be used in both rural and urban areas to help 

communities develop and grow sustainably. 

Although Federal statutory authority does not require States or tribes to adopt 

State Revolving Fund practices and policies that favor smarter growth, EPA will 

provide technical assistance to those States that wish to do so. 

Healthy Communities and Equitable Development 

Importantly, this new partnership with HUD and DOT will help us all make communities healthier. With our coordinated approach, the tide of growth and development will raise all boats. I am especially interested in working with my colleagues 

from DOT and HUD to revitalize neighborhoods that have suffered from decades of 

disinvestment. 

Many properties available for development in urban and rural communities are 

brownfields—properties where redevelopment may be complicated by the presence 

or potential presence of a contaminant. There are estimated to be more than 

450,000 brownfield sites nationwide. EPA’s Brownfields and Land Revitalization 

Program is designed to empower States, tribes, communities, and other stakeholders 

to assess, clean up, and sustainably reuse brownfields sites. To date, EPA’s 

Brownfields Program has supported assessments at more than 13,800 properties 

and clean-up of 366 properties, trained more than 5,000 residents living near 

brownfields communities for environmental jobs with a 64 percent job placement 

rate and an average hourly wage of $13.81, and leveraged over $13 billion in cleanup and redevelopment funding. 
44 

Redevelopment of such sites is often difficult—particularly for disadvantaged communities. Because such sites are usually served by infrastructure and transportation, they represent redevelopment opportunities that are critical to transforming 

years of disinvestment into a future of prosperity. 

Healthy communities are not only environmentally healthy, they are also socially 

and economically strong. They offer employment and educational opportunities, safe 

and affordable homes, access to recreation, health care, and other needs of daily life, 

all close enough together that people can choose to safely walk, bike, or take transit 

instead of driving. 

This type of neighborhood is particularly important for children and people who 

are physically unable to drive, or those who just find it too expensive to buy and 

maintain a car. One study found that while the average American family spends 

roughly 19 percent of its household budget on transportation, households with good 

access to transit spend just 9 percent. In too many poor communities, walking and 

bicycling are neither safe nor pleasant, and public transit is just as often unreliable 

or nonexistent. 

A healthy neighborhood is one where residents can get to the grocery store or the 

doctor’s office without a car if that’s what they want. It’s one where they can walk 

to the park to meet their friends, bike to school, or take the bus to their job so they 

can read on their way to work. 

These kinds of neighborhoods exist all over the country, and market demand for 

them is strong. In fact, the strong demand has driven up housing costs in many 

smart growth areas, too often putting them off-limits to lower-income residents. 

EPA is already working to create more environmentally responsible affordable 

housing in these neighborhoods. Coordinating with State housing officials and the 

regional Council of Governments, EPA’s Smart Growth Program recently helped 

four communities in the Hartford, Connecticut, area figure out how to use State affordable housing funds to meet multiple goals. This project brought together local 

and State policy makers, developers, and advocates to develop guidelines for housing 

programs to create mixed-income, mixed-use, green, compact developments with a 

range of transportation options. 

One redevelopment—on the site of a 27-acre abandoned shopping mall in Manchester, Connecticut—will receive EPA land revitalization funds to help create a 

plan that protects an adjacent stream while making it a key feature of the project. 

The design will allow residents to enjoy this natural resource and support a 

healthier watershed. 

As partners, EPA, DOT, and HUD can help communities make sure that publicly 

financed housing is attractive, safe, and convenient to daily destinations and that 

residents will have a range of transportation options. 

Conclusion 

As a Nation, we face the most serious economic downturn since the Great Depression. Every American is anxious about what that means—not just for their future, 

but for future generations as well. We are all working around the clock to get the 

economy moving again. 

At the same time that we face this economic crisis, there is not a moment to lose 

in protecting public health, the environment, and confronting the rapid advance of 

climate change. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. Working together, Congress, EPA, DOT, and HUD have a great opportunity to achieve the economic and 

environmental goals President Obama has outlined for our Nation. 
45 

RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF CHAIRMAN DODD 

FROM SHAUN DONOVAN 

Q.1. The Sustainable Communities Agenda and Small Towns—In 

Connecticut, in addition to cities like Hartford and New Haven, we 

have many small towns. 

It seems clear that promoting transit-oriented development can 

benefit large suburban communities and cities, but how can this 

sustainable communities agenda benefit small towns, such as 

Torrington, CT, as well as rural communities? 

A.1. Answer not received by time of publication. 

Q.2. Housing Affordability—In the recent housing crisis, foreclosure rates on homes near transit have been lower when compared to homes not near transit, and housing prices near transit 

have remained relatively stable. This suggests that the affordability of housing is not just about housing cost, but about the combined cost of housing and transportation. 

What can the Federal Government do to help consumers get the 

housing and transportation cost information they need to make informed housing choices? 

A.2. Answer not received by time of publication. 

RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SHELBY 

FROM SHAUN DONOVAN 

Q.1. Secretary Donovan, many of the goals set forth by the Sustainable Communities Initiative would seem to further priorities 

that would result from decisions traditionally made by State and 

local officials, such as the type of zoning and city planning required 

for many of these high density projects. While some communities 

will certainly wish to pursue these designs, others may not believe 

this would be in their best interests. What safeguards will be put 

in place within HUD to ensure the continued independence of local 

officials in the design of their communities? If State and local officials do not pursue the initiatives and priorities of this office, will 

there be any negative consequences as it relates to other Federal 

programs or funding? 

A.1. Answer not received by time of publication. 

Q.2. Secretary Donovan, one of the factors cited as a reason for the 

Federal Government to take action in promoting housing, which offers the convenience of the option to walk for many goods and services, is an identified pent-up demand for these type of communities. 

Given this, and given the goal of including affordable housing within these developments, how does HUD plan to ensure that affordable housing goals do not crowd out other Americans who are seeking to reside in these communities? Additionally, how do the costs 

of providing affordable housing within these settings compare with 

the cost of providing affordable housing in other types of communities within the same metro area? 

A.2. Answer not received by time of publication. 

Q.3. Secretary Donovan, obviously the needs and capabilities of 

rural communities are going to differ greatly from the needs and 

capabilities of more urban areas. If a larger mixed use development 
46 

may not be economically viable in a smaller, more rural community, how will HUD ensure that these communities will be able to 

participate in the Sustainable Communities Initiative if they wish 

to so? 

A.3. Answer not received by time of publication. 

RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SCHUMER 

FROM SHAUN DONOVAN 

Q.1. Secretary Donovan, as you know well from your time as Commissioner of the Department of Housing Preservation and Development in New York City, urban areas face particular challenges in 

trying to make their existing housing stock, and especially their affordable housing, more green. 

What plans does HUD have to try and incentivize owners of affordable housing to undertake these greening efforts in existing 

projects? 

A.1. Answer not received by time of publication. 

Q.2. Each of you have outlined the need for a coherent national 

policy, with long-term goals and indicators of success in working to 

develop more sustainable, energy efficient, and clean communities, 

that needs to be coordinated across each of your agencies. 

As you know, my State has one of the largest urban areas in the 

country, as well as some of the most rural. How are the policy initiatives that your respective agencies are undertaking going to affect both urban and rural areas? How do they fit into the vision 

of a coherent national policy on greening, energy efficiency, and 

emissions reduction? How can Congress help you to achieve this 

goal? 

A.2. Answer not received by time of publication. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MENENDEZ 

FROM SHAUN DONOVAN 

Q.1. Let me recognize and applaud the Administration’s sustainable and livable communities effort to bring together transit, housing, and environmental benefits. Which agency will serve as the 

base for this multi-agency effort? Have you thought about coupling 

HUD and DOT’s efforts with additional funding from sources such 

as the Community Development Block Grant program? 

A.1. Answer not received by time of publication. 

RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR BENNET 

FROM SHAUN DONOVAN 

Q.1. A nice new neighborhood that is far away from good jobs and 

good schools, will not be a nice neighborhood for long. How can 

Washington’s policy expertise and resources be harnessed most effectively with local leaders who understand a local jobs market and 

who know where the good schools are? I’m impressed with what 

I’m seeing from this panel—the Administration obviously intends 

to take an integrated approach. But local housing and urban planning experts have the applied knowledge of how particular commu-
47 

nities work—how transit can interact with affordable housing, for 

instance. In short, how does Washington do a better job of helping 

particular cities integrate their planning decisions? 

A.1. Answer not received by time of publication. 

Q.2. Efforts to support mixed income development fall short without good schools. Secretary Donovan, how can you work with local 

education officials to strategically support school reform and to construct new schools in locations that complement innovative development efforts? 

A.2. Answer not received by time of publication. 

Q.3. I am glad you include rural communities in your plans for sustainable development. Can you talk specifically about the challenges to employing sustainable development initiatives in rural 

areas? Are there opportunities to work with the Department of Agriculture on these efforts? 

A.3. Answer not received by time of publication. 

Q.4. A critical component of effective development is buy-in and 

participation from residents. Will the incentives for regional planning include incentives to integrate local residents into the planning process? 

A.4. Answer not received by time of publication. 

Q.5. As you know, most HOPE VI projects have been successful at 

leveraging public and private resources to displace the concentrations of poverty we have seen in our cities. But initiatives like 

HOPE VI, though critically important, can run into local trouble 

when local residents worry that losing affordable housing stock will 

displace people and break apart communities. In short, what’s good 

for a community in the long run can be terribly disruptive in the 

short run. What lessons have we learned from past setbacks at 

managing local expectations, that we can apply moving forward? 

How can HOPE VI be made to work better at managing local expectations? 

A.5. Answer not received by time of publication. 

Q.6. The HUD budget proposal for the Sustainable Communities 

Initiative to provide $100 million for Metropolitan Planning Organizations and cities or counties that receive CDBG and HOME 

funds to collaborate on regional plans that integrate housing, land 

use, and transportation, and $40 million to provide challenge 

grants for local land use changes that support regional objectives. 

I can see the value of these from recent Denver experience. For 

example, the City, MacArthur Foundation, Enterprise Communities, Denver Foundation, and local banks have capitalized a $15 

million ten-year Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Fund, which 

will provide financing to preserve and create affordable housing 

within a half mile of rail service and a quarter mile of high-frequency bus routes. The fund will target existing federally assisted 

rental properties; existing unsubsidized rental properties currently 

affordable to households below 60 percent of area median income; 

and currently vacant or commercial properties with desirable locations for new affordable housing. The Fund will enable holding 

properties for up to 5 years, which is considerably longer than most 
48 

similar funds allow, but given the market conditions near transit 

stations, it will provide the maximum flexibility to secure long-term 

subsidies to preserve existing rental housing. But at $15 million, 

it still is underfunded for the need and impact. 

Is that the type of programmatic activity you would seek to finance under these programs? Can you give specific examples, and 

the funding criteria and outcome measures you would expect to 

apply, and how would you operationalize them? 

A.6. Answer not received by time of publication. 

RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CRAPO 

FROM SHAUN DONOVAN 

Q.1. As you know, there is a Section 8 funding shortfall happening 

to a number of PHA’s around the country. The Boise City/Ada 

County Housing Authority has notified me that based on the funding notice it received in May from HUD, for the period retroactive 

to January 1, 2009, it is approximately $1 million short and is preparing to terminate 400—500 families from assistance. While I 

don’t have information to indicate the full scope of the problem nationwide, it is my understanding that a significant number of 

PHA’s are facing similar decisions. While some appeal funding has 

been set aside, considering that families receiving assistance are 

among our most vulnerable, and landlords count on rental payments to offset their property costs, and communities stand to lose 

more economic stability in an already unstable economic climate, 

what is the Department prepared to do to address a crisis which 

may greatly exceed the funding that has been made available to 

honor existing assistance contracts? 

A.1. Answer not received by time of publication. 

RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CORKER 

FROM SHAUN DONOVAN 

Q.1. Due to the challenges in the financial sector, hospitals that 

are looking to expand their facilities or construct new facilities that 

are needed in certain areas are unable to get the financing necessary for these projects. Two HUD loan program, Section 232 and 

Section 242, provide much needed assistance to our health care facilities and have played an important role in filling the credit void 

that exists for many borrowers. 

Based on your interpretation of eligibility, is it possible for psychiatric hospitals to be eligible for either of these programs? If so, 

what are the terms of eligibility? If they are not, please offer you 

comments on the expansion of these programs to include these facilities. 

A.1. Answer not recieved by time of publication. 

Q.2. We’ve heard from constituents who were informed by HUD 

that the Section 232 mortgage program would soon, if it has not 

already, stop insuring qualified medical facility loans. If this is the 

case, can you explain HUD’s rationale for this decision? 

A.2. Answer not recieved by time of publication. 
49 

Q.3. We certainly believe that there are still significant challenges 

in the real estate market, and until confidence in this market returns, buyers will be sidelined and our economy will continue to experience stress. Contributing to the uneasiness some buyers feel 

about conditions in the market are certain HUD positions that may 

have exacerbated the uncertainty currently existing in the housing 

market. One example has been HUD’s position regarding home 

service contracts, treating them as a settlement service under 

RESPA. 

What rationale does the Department have for classifying these 

contracts as a settlement service? 

Why did HUD question the propriety of selling these contracts in 

residential real estate transactions? Does HUD believe they afford 

consumers protection against unexpected home repairs? 

Does HUD believe that home services contracts, unrelated to the 

lawful consummation of a residential real estate transaction, 

should be exempt from RESPA, or should Mr. Ceja’s letter be rescinded? 

A.3. Answer not recieved by time of publication. 

Q.4. In urban centers across the country, there are obsolete corridors—particularly commercial ones—where the population has 

moved along, but we still have infrastructure in place and not 

being utilized. We see this in places across my own State of Tennessee where large retail centers or strip mall type areas stand 

abandoned. 

How do we find ways to create appropriate incentives for private 

sector development in these types of areas that help overcome the 

costs associated with EPA or ADA regulations that often point 

builders in a different direction? 

A.4. Answer not recieved by time of publication. 

Q.5. In the City of Memphis, an estimated 10 percent of the residential, buildable lots are vacant and the difficulties in land consolidation and the environmental clean-up often required is prohibitive for new builds. On the residential side of things, do you have 

any suggestions as to what are the most appropriate incentives to 

encourage development and utilization? Should there be any distinction between residential areas and commercial areas in your 

view? 

A.5. Answer not recieved by time of publication. 

Q.6. Do you believe that coordination between land use and transportation infrastructure use needs to be mandated when planning 

occurs? Far too often such planning happens in a vacuum. How can 

we encourage reinvestment in aging infrastructure instead of building new? 

A.6. Answer not recieved by time of publication. 

Q.7. Do you believe that under the Uniform Relocation Act the 

rules and regulations have made the replacement of older multifamily units prohibitive, even with multiple incentives included? 

Do you believe that such regulations promote an acceptance of very 

substandard housing in certain urban areas? 

A.7. Answer not recieved by time of publication. 
50 

RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF CHAIRMAN DODD 

FROM RAY LAHOOD 

Q.1. The Sustainable Communities Agenda and Small Towns—In 

Connecticut, in addition to cities like Hartford and New Haven, we 

have many small towns. 

It seems clear that promoting transit-oriented development can 

benefit large suburban communities and cities, but how can this 

sustainable communities agenda benefit small towns, such as 

Torrington, CT, as well as rural communities? 

A.1. Livability and transit-oriented development are not just for 

large urban and suburban communities. Key principles of livability/ 

sustainable communities are to support existing communities and 

to value communities and neighborhoods. Our objective is to ensure 

that all communities—rural, urban, or suburban—be sustainable in 

healthy, safe and walkable neighborhoods, and to target Federal 

funding in communities to increase community revitalization and 

efficiency of public works investments, and safeguarding rural 

landscapes. To provide a decision framework for this, there needs 

to be a transportation planning process in all areas that calls for 

coordination across planning disciplines. State and local officials 

and transportation service providers, working through this planning process, may develop better coordinated transportation, housing, and land-use plans. 

There is no ‘‘one size fits all,’’ whether we are talking about livability and sustainability, or transit-oriented development. Many 

small towns and rural areas currently do not have transportation 

options available for their residents. Without access to automobiles 

or trucks, these residents may be disconnected to the routine activities that provide for quality of life, such as medical appointments 

and shopping. A seamless and integrated intermodal transportation 

network is as essential to the quality of life in small town and 

rural areas as it is to large metropolitan areas; only the scale is 

different. 

Q.2. Transportation Reauthorization—When we talk about livable, 

sustainable communities, we tend to think of cities and towns 

where people have real travel choices: they can walk, bike, and 

take public transportation. We know the availability of safe, reliable public transportation helps to remove cars from the road, 

which reduces congestion, reduces our dependence on foreign oil, 

and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Your department and my 

Committee both want to write a transportation bill that serves the 

needs of America in the 21st century. One of our priorities must 

be to increase the number of people who have access to first-rate 

public transportation. 

What can we do in the next transportation bill to make this happen and significantly grow transit ridership? 

A.2. What makes any public transportation system ‘‘first-rate’’ is 

reliability, convenience, accessibility, and safety. Of course, everyone thinks that providing more funding to purchase more vehicles 

and equipment with the latest technology is the solution. But that’s 

only part of it. We need to optimize the operations and maintenance of our transit systems, to maintain a state of good repair, 
51 

and ensure that local and State funding sources provide adequate 

funding for appropriate levels of transit services. 

Transit agencies need to have a stronger voice in transportation 

planning to improve the modal balance in transportation investment. Neighborhoods configured to provide a mix of land uses provide easier access to nonauto travelers and promote mobility for all 

travelers. Investment in sustaining our transportation infrastructure will also stimulate private sector economic activity, increasing 

the viability of street level retail, creating housing opportunities, 

and extending the usefulness of transit facilities. Improving the accessibility and connectivity of our public transportation network 

will influence more people to choose transit. 

Q.3. New Starts Program—The New Starts program, as authorized, 

includes land use and economic development as key evaluation criteria. However, the dominant criteria evaluated by the Federal 

Transit Administration has been cost-effectiveness. 

As we look at rewriting the New Starts program for the next 

transportation bill, do you have any thoughts as to how we can elevate the land-use and economic development criteria, and therefore 

encourage the kind of mixed-use development around transit stations that we are talking about today? 

A.3. One of my key initiatives is livability and better tying transportation investments to land-use planning, economic development, 

and environmental goals. 

The New Starts process has considered transit supportive land 

use and weighted it equally to cost-effectiveness in the evaluation 

and rating of project justification since TEA–21. Since its addition 

as a criterion in SAFETEA–LU, FTA has been considering the economic development effects of a project as an ‘‘other factor’’ in the 

evaluation and rating process. FTA has been working for some time 

to develop a better approach for measuring and evaluating the economic development effects of projects, and recently put forth one 

possible approach for public comment. FTA received over 80 comments on the approach and is currently reviewing them before putting forth a formal proposal. 

Under my direction, FTA has also recently taken steps to immediately give all of the New Starts project justification criteria more 

comparable weights in the evaluation and rating process. On May 

19, 2009, FTA published a Federal register notice describing its 

proposal for reweighting the criteria to comply with the SAFETEA– 

LU Technical Corrections Act. Under the proposal put forth by 

FTA, the weights would be: mobility benefits 20 percent, economic 

development 20 percent, land use 20 percent, cost-effectiveness 20 

percent, environmental benefits 10 percent, and operating efficiencies 10 percent. FTA is currently considering the comments received and will put forth a final proposal in the very near future. 

Q.4. Senior Mobility—Secretary LaHood, in your testimony, you 

mentioned the importance of mobility for older Americans. Older 

Americans represent the fastest growing demographic in the Nation and, as indicated in your testimony, there is an increased desire of older adults to ‘‘age in place’’ near their families and friends. 

Without adequate public transportation, it is too easy for these individuals to become isolated or forced into nursing homes. 
52 

How can the livability agenda help ensure that seniors or others 

with special transportation needs have access to transportation 

that meets their needs? 

A.4. Implementation of strategies that incorporate the principles of 

livability will result in improved quality of life for all Americans, 

including older Americans. As the population ages, we must identify new strategies to move people within communities and 

throughout the Nation. Integrating transportation planning with 

community development will improve mobility by providing transportation choices that serve community needs, and improve accessibility and connectivity. Likewise, planning for housing and companion services—including that required for those with special 

needs—around existing and planned transportation infrastructure 

makes for efficient and effective use of those investments. This 

form of integrated planning will strengthen the ties between transportation providers and the communities they serve. 

Local governments, transportation providers, and all stakeholder 

groups will learn new ways to think and relate to one another, resulting in the materialization of strategies in many forms: multiagency partnerships; more customer-driven approaches to transportation delivery; innovative financing approaches; etc. The livability 

agenda is focused on serving the transportation needs of all Americans—drivers and nondrivers alike—and values the characteristics 

of individual communities and neighborhoods. 

RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SCHUMER 

FROM RAY LAHOOD 

Q.1. Secretary LaHood, as you know, New York City’s extensive infrastructure system consists of nearly 1,500 highway bridges and 

over 6,000 miles of highway. Furthermore, our transit system in 

New York City, made up of over 700 miles is the largest system 

in the entire country. 

In light of the increasing significance that Mass Transit has for 

the economy of New York, and the entire country, what efforts has 

the Department of Transportation undertaken to maintain and upgrade this critical infrastructure? How can Congress provide the 

Department with more tools to do this work in a cost-effective way, 

while at the same time meeting a more rigorous energy efficiency 

standard? 

A.1. Maintaining our Nation’s transportation infrastructure in a 

‘‘state of good repair’’ is among the Department’s highest priorities. 

Not only do we strive to ensure that federally funded assets are 

being taken care of and in sufficient working order throughout 

their useful life—that is, that taxpayers are getting a good return 

on their investment—but that the transportation systems they support and that all Americans depend upon on a daily basis are safe 

and reliable. 

New York City, in particular, is home to our Nation’s largest 

public transportation system. It is hard to imagine the impact to 

the Nation’s economy if transit in New York could no longer provide the basic mobility that so many millions of riders depend upon 

daily. 
53 

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides funding to 

New York City and other transit systems across the country. In FY 

2009, Congress appropriated nearly $886 million in formula funding for transit capital projects in the metropolitan New York City 

area—a significant amount which went to recapitalization. New 

York City was further appropriated another $460 million for specific investments to modernize its rail system. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provided another $1.18 billion in 

formula funds for the region and $254 million for New York City 

rail recapitalization. 

While these are significant investments, they are not enough. A 

recent FTA study on the reinvestment needs of the Nation’s seven 

oldest and largest transit agencies identified a backlog of $50 billion to bring their capital infrastructure to a state of good repair. 

Clearly, Congress needs to consider the maintenance and modernization needs of transit—and highway—infrastructure in the 

next reauthorization of a Federal surface transportation program. 

In the meantime, FTA has embarked on a wide-ranging initiative 

aimed at better understanding the state of repair of the Nation’s 

transit systems and how improved asset management and other 

practices might help mitigate the backlog. In addition to the aforementioned rail modernization study, FTA has established a working group with the industry to disseminate best practices and consider a common definition, or standard, for achieving a state of 

good repair. In July, FTA brought together large and small transit 

operators from across the country to further discuss issues—and 

ideas—associated with this important topic. FTA will soon be publishing a national and international scan of transit asset management practices, as well as an expansion of the rail modernization 

study to include other systems. 

Importantly, in light of recent transit accidents that have regrettably resulted in the loss of lives, FTA is particularly interested in 

working with the transit industry to identify those capital assets 

which are most ‘‘safety-critical’’ and determine how their maintenance and replacement can be the focus of local prioritization and 

decision making. Moreover, we need to ensure that the replacement 

and modernization of our transit systems result in investments 

which are energy efficient and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

We are excited about the Transit Investments Generating Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction program provided for by ARRA, 

and look forward to a similar program in reauthorization. 

Q.2. Each of you have outlined the need for a coherent national 

policy, with long-term goals and indicators of success in working to 

develop more sustainable, energy-efficient, and clean communities, 

that needs to be coordinated across each of your agencies. 

As you know, my State has one of the largest urban areas in the 

country, as well as some of the most rural. How are the policy initiatives that your respective agencies are undertaking going to affect both urban and rural areas? How do they fit into the vision 

of a coherent national policy on greening, energy efficiency, and 

emissions reduction? How can Congress help you to achieve this 

goal? 

A.2. The elements of livability impact both urban and rural communities. A transportation system that provides reliable and safe 
54 

access to jobs, education, health care, and goods and services is 

equally important to rural and urban communities. Remote locations present unique challenges to mobility, including ensuring access for older citizens to services and activities. Providing transportation choices can increase community mobility and allow seniors 

to age in place. Fostering land-use planning that promotes clustered commercial centers can enable one-stop-shopping for many 

residents, reducing fuel costs and time on the road, and enhancing 

a sense of community. 

Additionally, transportation planning is presently carried out at 

the regional level in metropolitan and urbanized areas or at the 

State level for rural and nonurbanized communities, whereas housing and land-use planning is conducted at the local municipal/county level. Bringing these disparate groups together to integrate planning of housing development, land-use, and transportation improvements is fundamental to locating new and preserving existing 

affordable housing in proximity to public transportation. 

About 28 percent of the greenhouse gases generated in the 

United States are attributable to transportation, so this is an area 

in which we need to make progress. We must reduce the amount 

of energy needed to operate our transportation system, and that 

means moving more of our freight by energy-efficient means such 

as rail and water, and making more strategic investments for passenger travel. We need to accelerate the introduction of energy-efficient cars and trucks. 

To support these goals, we must be strategic about our investments in existing infrastructure by supporting ventures that will 

improve street connectivity and transit-oriented development, 

which not only improve livability but reduce the carbon footprint 

of our transportation system. 

We need to ensure access and promote integrated planning processes to make certain that the transportation system makes a positive contribution to enhancing the livability of communities. These 

are the types of investments that the Federal Government should 

be making on existing infrastructure to ensure that we are obtaining a high-return while effectively contributing to a state of good 

repair of our existing infrastructure. Congress can support these efforts by making them a priority in the surface transportation authorization process. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MENENDEZ 

FROM RAY LAHOOD 

Q.1. New Jersey has many transit stations located along the 

Northeast Corridor. If towns along this line want to promote transit oriented development, they have to work with and get permission from AMTRAK. Will you be coordinating your initiative with 

AMTRAK so they are a partner in transit oriented development? 

New Jersey also has many commuter rail lines that share the 

tracks with freight rail companies. Can we count on the Federal 

Railroad Administration along with the freight rail companies to 

cooperate with this effort? 

A.1. Although funding under the Federal Railroad Administration’s 

(FRA) High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program is in-
55 

tended for the development of high-speed and intercity passenger 

rail service, not commuter rail service, the HSIPR Program recognizes the benefits of commuter rail service and transit-oriented development. The HSIPR Program’s application evaluation criteria 

takes into account a proposed project’s integration with local transit networks at train stations and the proposed project’s promotion 

of livable communities, including the incorporation of transit-oriented development. HSIPR Program applicants must reach agreements with project infrastructure owners and service operators, including the freight railroads and Amtrak where applicable. 

Q.2. Secretary LaHood, one thing I have noticed in recent years is 

that the strict cost/benefit analysis required by the New Starts program has sometimes resulted in transit lines being sited outside of 

city centers. This makes the projects cheaper, but does not serve 

to generate development. In New Jersey, we have seen that when 

you build where people live, as we did on the Hudson/Bergen Light 

Rail project, billions of dollars of transit oriented development will 

follow. Secretary LaHood, for this reason do you think a transit oriented development program should have as one of its requirements 

enough existing population around planned stops to spark new 

growth? 

A.2. I believe that consideration of existing population and employment as well as projections for future population and employment 

is necessary to perform a fair comparison of projects around the 

country. Generally, transit performs best in areas with sufficient 

densities of people making similar trip patterns. Because these are 

long-term investments, it would be short-sighted to base decisions 

on existing population and employment alone. That said, the integrated planning approaches we are promoting are intended to help 

advance investments that will support future growth of the patterns and densities needed to make transit successful and sustainable. 

Q.3. How much do you think the issue of transit oriented development has to do with the proper outreach? Many communities have 

zoning and land-use regulations that have their roots in the 1950s 

and 1960s. NJ TRANSIT has conducted some 40 vision-planning 

sessions for communities it has targeted for transit villages and it 

has seen the benefits, but the costs, time, and effort it takes to educate citizens, community groups, and local governments can be 

high. Do you think such outreach would be worthwhile use of resources for a Federal transit oriented development program? 

A.3. Yes. Outreach and capacity building are critical to the institutionalization of transit-oriented development, as it engages practitioners from distinct specialty areas—land use and transportation. 

While the linkage between transportation and land use is generally 

acknowledged among these practitioners, their orientation to this 

integral element is rarely mutual. The focus on sustainable communities, however, requires them to find common goals and objectives. 

Land-use planning is locally oriented whereas transportation planning is either regional or statewide. Awareness of their interrelatedness, both in process as well as form, is most effectively realized 

through vision-planning exercises. Vision and grass roots based 

outreach and education to the public and elected officials can have 
56 

a significant impact on their understanding and acceptance of alternative land-use development that is more favorable to transportation, including public transportation. In summary, enhanced capacity building and outreach to all community stakeholders (individual residents, transit agencies, government officials, neighborhood/community associations, etc.) will enable communities to make 

effective investment decisions and also leverage the Federal investment. 

RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR BENNET 

FROM RAY LAHOOD 

Q.1. A nice new neighborhood that is far away from good jobs and 

good schools, will not be a nice neighborhood for long. How can 

Washington’s policy expertise and resources be harnessed most effectively with local leaders who understand a local jobs market and 

who know where the good schools are? I’m impressed with what 

I’m seeing from this panel—the Administration obviously intends 

to take an integrated approach. But local housing and urban planning experts have the applied knowledge of how particular communities work—how transit can interact with affordable housing, for 

instance. In short, how does Washington do a better job of helping 

particular cities integrate their planning decisions? 

A.1. Enhanced integrated planning and investment is one of the 

key goals of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

the Department of Transportation and Environmental Protection 

Agency Sustainable Communities Partnership. Just as we at the 

Federal level are talking and working with one another, we are encouraging our respective community stakeholders to do the same. 

We are reviewing case studies of cities and States for which this 

collaboration actually occurs now. As a result, we will be able to 

define elements of successful integrated, comprehensive planning 

processes. We will work with local communities to replicate these 

efforts in consideration of their unique characteristics through technical assistance and capacity building programs, and promote identified best practices at housing and transportation forums across 

the Nation. 

In addition, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and 

the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) assist Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) with understanding how to undertake 

integrated land-use/transportation/housing planning in a number of 

ways. At the region level, scenario planning can provide local planning staff and decision makers (local elected officials and local 

planners as well as MPO staff) with information on how various 

potential future transportation and land-use scenarios might perform. When future land use and transportation are analyzed in 

combination, it helps answer questions concerning the impacts of 

future population and employment growth and their impacts on 

land use and transportation. The outcome provides decision makers 

information on the implications of different land-use and transportation scenarios which in turn can be used to make decisions on 

what to include in the long range transportation plan for the region. On a more location-specific basis, planning for transit-oriented development (TOD) can similarly lead to better integrated 
57 

land-use/transportation plans. Technical assistance has been provided and informational reports are in preparation outlining the 

strategic policy and programmatic opportunities available through 

MPOs to advance TOD in hundreds of communities across the 

United States. 

Q.2. I am glad you include rural communities in your plans for sustainable development. Can you talk specifically about the challenges to employing sustainable development initiatives in rural 

areas? Are there opportunities to work with the Department of Agriculture on these efforts? 

A.2. We recognize that rural areas have needs that are unique to 

their rural characteristics. For example, rural communities are 

being affected by the aging of the population and often have a higher percentage of older Americans who need access to services while 

being dependent on the automobile. 

Under the programs of the DOT, we have worked to include 

rural America in the transportation decision-making process by ensuring that there is a proactive effort for the participation of the 

public and rural local officials in the statewide transportation planning process. Encouraging this input into the planning process provides rural communities with the opportunity to foster transportation development in a sustainable manner. 

Small rural towns have the unique function as centers of commerce and community interaction that are critical to the sustainability of the area as a whole. Oftentimes, rural residents are far 

from needed social services like health care, education, and jobs. 

Rural areas also play an important role in environmental protection, such as source water and endangered species protection. Sustainable development in these communities would mean providing 

for and supporting the capacity for rural areas to maintain their 

rural character with the mix of farming, craftsmen, and small businesses, and a clean and healthy environment while also providing 

for access to services to town and urban centers in a safe and reliable manner. I believe we need to look at transportation from a national perspective and identify the best ways to link points of population and commerce, including the farms where our food is grown, 

the industrial areas, recreational opportunities, and the land borders and ports. Improvements to transportation infrastructure are 

critical to rural areas with a high stake in the agricultural economy. Certainly, we will look to the Department of Agriculture for 

assistance in achieving these goals. 

Currently, the FHWA Office of Planning and FHWA Office of Operations are working on ways to improve freight movement across 

the country, as moving agricultural products to market is a key for 

providing rural communities with needed resources. DOT and 

USDA can work together to ensure more reliable and sustainable 

freight movement. 

Q.3. A critical component of effective development is buy-in and 

participation from residents. Will the incentives for regional planning include incentives to integrate local residents into the planning process? 

A.3. Since the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 

Efficiency Act (ISTEA) in December 1991 and throughout the sub-
58 

sequent authorizations, public involvement opportunities in the 

transportation planning process have been greatly enhanced. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and State Departments 

of Transportation (DOTs) now include public involvement in the development of transportation programs and plans. The public is 

given the opportunity to comment and participate in the development of transportation plans and programs through public meetings, stakeholder groups (e.g., bicycle, freight), use of the World 

Wide Web, and in some cases use of visualization tools. However, 

there is much room for improvement. I look forward to working 

with Congress to improve the way complex issues are presented to 

the public and how public input is integrated into transportation 

planning and investment decisions. 

Q.4. As this Committee drafts the surface transportation program 

reauthorization, what specific changes should we make to the way 

that current transit and highway funding programs work in order 

to promote development that enables greater mobility and reduced 

reliance on cars? 

For example, some recent analyses of State transportation spending show that our major metropolitan areas receive dramatically 

less funding than their proportion of the State’s population, vehicle 

miles traveled, or economic output, all of which are associated with 

the level of transportation needs. 

We’ve heard in prior hearings from Denver Mayor Hickenlooper 

and others that the current Cost Effectiveness Index for Federal 

transit investment decisions does not adequately take into account 

housing and economic development impacts, or support local efforts 

to direct future growth patterns along transit-oriented corridors. 

We also need to assure that rural residents, of which there are 

many in Colorado, continue to be well-served by transportation 

spending. 

But how would you modify the decision criteria, targeting, uses, 

and funding or match levels of our highway funding programs and 

transit programs to address the amount and use of transportation 

investment in Nation’s metropolitan areas for more sustainable development? 

A.4. In the proposal for an 18-month extension of the surface transportation program, the Administration has proposed to lay the 

groundwork for reform in the eventual reauthorization. One of 

those steps is to create a program to support efforts to coordinate 

transportation, housing, and land-use planning and fund projects 

that enhance the livability of communities, including transit and 

bike and pedestrian infrastructure. 

We also put out a solicitation for grant applications for the new 

multi-modal discretionary grant program created under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). In 

that solicitation, we made clear that we are looking for transportation projects that had both short and long term economic benefits 

for communities as well as improve the livability and sustainability 

of the community. We hope that our administration of this program 

encourages Congress to continue and expand this approach to ensure that the projects the Federal Government funds are the highest performing and top quality. 
59 

Q.5. The HUD budget proposal for the Sustainable Communities Initiative to provide $100 million for Metropolitan Planning Organizations and cities or counties that receive CDBG and HOME 

funds to collaborate on regional plans that integrate housing, land 

use, and transportation, and $40 million to provide challenge 

grants for local land-use changes that support regional objectives. 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations in major population centers 

across the country are inconsistent in their capacity, governance, 

and regional representation. States currently establish these structures. Many do not have effective land-use planning abilities. Many 

do not fully integrate transit agencies. Many are known for voting 

systems whereby suburban and smaller communities dominate the 

more populous central city and direct highway resources in ways 

that enable sprawl and more vehicles miles, rather than compact 

growth or infill. 

Do you have recommendations on structural changes to MPOs 

that will help them serve as better regional facilitators for integrated growth, potentially to consider in the surface transportation 

program reauthorization? 

Would you consider a new requirement in HUD Consolidated 

Plan and annual Action Plan, or MPO Long-Range Plans and 

Transportation Improvement Programs, that they demonstrate an 

alignment of housing, transportation, and land-use goals? 

A.5. Successful plans can be and have been implemented by MPOs. 

Two examples are: PlanCheyenne, an integrated community master 

plan that defines the Cheyenne, Wyoming, area future growth; and 

Envision Utah Public/Private Partnership, formed to guide development and create growth strategies that protect Utah’s environment, economic strengths and provide a sustainable quality of life 

for its residents. 

As part of the 18-month extension of the surface transportation 

program, the Administration is interested at taking steps to improve the capacity at Metropolitan Planning Organizations to better coordinate transportation planning with housing and development plans. We are currently developing legislative language and 

hope to share it with members of Congress in the coming days. 

Further, we look forward to working with Congress to address 

these issues in a long-term reauthorization. 

RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CRAPO 

FROM RAY LAHOOD 

Q.1. In Boise, Idaho, a task force comprised of top level civic and 

business leaders is working in the community and is actively engaged in a comprehensive feasibility analysis and implementation 

strategy for the Downtown Boise Streetcar which can begin construction in 2010. The City of Boise will shortly be sending you an 

application for a $25 million exempt grant from TIGER for this 

project. Can I get your commitment that you will consider this request and that your staff will work with City of Boise on how best 

to proceed? 

A.1. We encourage all project sponsors who believe they have a 

project that meets the criteria outlined in our Federal Register notice—long term outcomes, job creation, and economic stimulus, as 
60 

well as innovation and partnership—to apply for TIGER grants 

under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. You have my 

pledge that we will carefully consider any application submitted by 

the City of Boise and will work with all applicants to ensure we 

have a thorough understanding of the projects and their benefits 

before making final selections for award. 

RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CORKER 

FROM RAY LAHOOD 

Q.1. In urban centers across the country, there are obsolete corridors—particularly commercial ones—where the population has 

moved along, but we still have infrastructure in place and not 

being utilized. We see this in places across my own State of Tennessee where large retail centers or strip mall type areas stand 

abandoned. 

How do we find ways to create appropriate incentives for private 

sector development in these types of areas that help overcome the 

costs associated with EPA or ADA regulations that often point 

builders in a different direction? 

A.1. Changes in demographics, shifts in land-use patterns, and the 

emergence of new job markets require different approaches to managing mobility and development. Poor coordination between transportation, housing and development policies can play a role in creating these obsolete corridors. Improving coordination between 

these policies and investments in housing, transportation and development programs can help to reverse the problem. They can also 

create stronger communities, better able to weather economically 

challenging times. Over the past year, communities with town centers, walkability, and transit have seen lower foreclosure rates 

than their car-dependent counterparts. 

In the proposal for an 18-month extension of the surface transportation program, the Administration has proposed to lay the 

groundwork for reform in the eventual reauthorization. One of 

those steps is to create a program to support efforts to coordinate 

transportation, housing and land-use planning and fund projects 

that enhance the livability of communities, including transit, transit-oriented development, and bike and pedestrian infrastructure. 

We are currently developing legislative language and hope to share 

it with members of Congress in the coming days. Further, we look 

forward to working with Congress to address these issues in a longterm reauthorization. 

Q.2. In the City of Memphis, an estimated 10 percent of the residential, buildable lots are vacant and the difficulties in land consolidation and the environmental clean-up often required is prohibitive for new builds. On the residential side of things, do you have 

any suggestions as to what are the most appropriate incentives to 

encourage development and utilization? Should there be any distinction between residential areas and commercial areas in your 

view? 

A.2. Infill and urban growth strategies are necessary to develop a 

truly successful livable community. One barrier is that developers 

typically leap frog to cheaper land parcels on the outer fringe of ur-
61 

banized areas. Strong infill and growth strategies are required at 

the local level to prevent such development practices and this requires strong coordination between transportation, housing and development planning and investments. All Federal agencies must 

work together to ensure that Federal funding promotes coordination, leverages scarce resources and builds strong communities 

Q.3. Do you believe that coordination between land-use and transportation infrastructure use needs to be mandated when planning 

occurs? Far too often such planning happens in a vacuum. How can 

we encourage reinvestment in aging infrastructure instead of building new? 

A.3. Transportation dollars are most effectively spent in areas that 

coordinate those investments with housing and development investments. That is why we put such an emphasis on this coordination 

in our solicitation for grant applications for the new multi-modal 

discretionary grant program created under the Recovery act. 

We can also place a greater emphasis on bringing our infrastructure up to a state of good repair. Over the past 10 years, the percentage of miles traveled on highways in good condition has increased from 39 to 47 percent. Still, there is much work to do. A 

performance-based system that prioritizes asset management is 

something that many members of Congress have expressed a desire 

to see, and we look forward to working with you to address this in 

the reauthorization of the surface transportation program. 

Q.4. Do you believe that under the Uniform Relocation Act the 

rules and regulations have made the replacement of older multifamily units prohibitive, even with multiple incentives included? 

Do you believe that such regulations promote an acceptance of very 

substandard housing in certain urban areas? 

A.4. The Uniform Act provides important protections and assistance for people affected by federally funded projects. This law was 

enacted to ensure that people whose real property is acquired, or 

who move as a result of projects receiving Federal funds, will be 

treated fairly and equitably and will receive assistance in moving 

from the property they occupy. Ensuring that comparable housing 

that is decent, safe and sanitary is available to a homeowner or 

tenant displaced by a project or program that receives Federal financial aid or assistance is a bedrock principal and purpose of the 

Uniform Act. There is nothing in the Uniform Act or implementing 

regulations that has made redevelopment or replacement of older 

multi-family units prohibitive or would promote an acceptance of 

substandard housing. Agencies can and do utilize a number of creative options to ensure that the Uniform Act requirements can be 

met in a timely way. The provisions of the Uniform Act can be successfully used in conjunction with a collaborative development/redevelopment process. Given this situation, we do not see the Uniform 

Act as a barrier to development or redevelopment of older multifamily units. 
62 

RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF CHAIRMAN DODD 

FROM LISA P. JACKSON 

Q.1. The Sustainable Communities Agenda and Small Towns—In 

Connecticut, in addition to cities like Hartford and New Haven, we 

have many small towns. It seems clear that promoting transit-oriented development can benefit large suburban communities and 

cities, but how can this sustainable communities agenda benefit 

small towns, such as Torrington, CT, as well as rural communities? 

A.1. The basic principles of the Partnership for Sustainable Communities hold as true for small towns and rural areas as they do 

for cities and suburbs. All communities can find ways to direct development in a manner that supports existing neighborhoods, offers 

more equitable employment and housing opportunities, and offers 

transportation options that will help residents rely less on their 

cars. 

Rural communities can use these principles to direct development while protecting farmland and natural areas. Preserving the 

landscape is key to maintaining the rural way of life. For many 

rural places, farming or tourism are major economic assets and 

should be protected with carefully planned growth. 

Good planning can help with two issues that many rural communities struggle with: young people leaving the community to seek 

economic opportunities or affordable homes, and rural poverty. By 

encouraging a range of housing types, rural communities can give 

young people, older people who may be on fixed incomes, and lower 

income workers new options to stay in the community. 

Small and rural communities may face additional challenges 

where youth are drawn away from the community, particularly for 

job opportunities not available in the community. Small and rural 

towns are more economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable when connected to a larger public transportation grid that 

does not depend exclusively on private vehicles. Where viable in 

rural areas, public transportation allows industries to attract workers and professionals from a broader area. 

Small towns can revitalize their main streets, preserve their historic neighborhoods, and make sure that they have homes that 

young people just starting out can afford. They can preserve the 

character of their historic areas while accommodating new development, as Torrington is doing in its downtown. Small towns often 

have brownfields that offer good opportunities for redevelopment 

once they are cleaned up. Torrington, for example, is receiving $1 

million from EPA to clean up and revitalize brownfields, which will 

help with its economic development efforts by returning contaminated properties to productive use. 

Q.2. Brownfield Development—One part of the urban environment 

in many cities is old industrial sites, or brownfields. In fact, there 

is a large brownfield site in Bridgeport, CT, that is also very close 

to public transportation. These sites present a number of issues, including environmental concerns. 

How can this interagency sustainable communities agenda, and 

the EPA specifically, help communities tackle obstacles to revitalizing these areas? 
63 

A.2. Cleaning and redeveloping brownfields is a key strategy for 

sustainable communities. It can be particularly important in addressing environmental justice and equitable development questions. Brownfields are often located in poorer neighborhoods and, 

until they are cleaned up, can pose risks to public health and act 

as a deterrent to private investment in the neighborhood. HUD requires disclosure of brownfield properties prior to property rental 

or sale. As a result, property owners or tenants are aware of 

brownfield issues prior to their assumption of the property. 

While they can offer great opportunities for redevelopment—particularly when they are served by existing infrastructure and transportation—the complexity of putting these sites back to productive 

use can be daunting. HUD and EPA will work together to make 

sure our policies ensure that former brownfield sites can be put 

back into productive use in ways that protect future residents, 

strengthen and revitalize disadvantaged communities, and help 

local economies. 

EPA’s Brownfields and Land Revitalization Program has been 

working for years to help communities overcome the challenges of 

cleaning up and redeveloping contaminated sites. As I mentioned 

in my testimony, the Brownfields Program has supported assessments of more than 13,500 properties and leveraged more than $13 

billion in cleanup and redevelopment funding. (Based on data collected from the EPA Assessment, Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System (A.C.R.E.S.) Database, which is collected and reported annually.) Coordinating with DOT and HUD will help communities use these funds even more effectively by better incorporating transportation and housing concerns and tapping new 

sources of funding. 

As you know, Bridgeport has experience cleaning up and redeveloping brownfields. It is one of the Brownfield Program’s success 

stories for cleaning up an abandoned factory and redeveloping it 

into a baseball stadium and other amenities. Bridgeport is also an 

example of how the Partnership for Sustainable Communities could 

coordinate efforts. In Bridgeport, the collaboration of multiple Federal agencies allowed cleanup and redevelopment to progress well 

beyond the assessment and planning stages enabled by EPA’s initial $200,000 brownfields grant. 

Cleanup and redevelopment can also create jobs for residents of 

disadvantaged communities. With effective coordination, the Department of Labor, DOT, EPA, and HUD can leverage efforts to 

provide jobs for local low income persons living in economically distressed communities adjacent to brownfield sites. 

The Brownfields Program reports that it has trained more than 

5,000 residents living near brownfield communities for environmental jobs. Bridgeport can claim one of these job training success 

stories. The WorkPlace, Inc., first received EPA Brownfields Job 

Training Grant funding in 2001. The program has trained 248 residents from Bridgeport and Naugatuck Valley and has a placement 

rate of 100 percent. Under the most recent grant, which was announced in January 2009, The WorkPlace, Inc., plans to train 55 

residents from Ansonia, Derby, Norwalk, Seymour, and Shelton, 

Connecticut, for green jobs such as sampling techniques for soil 

and groundwater, phytoremediation, energy efficiency, and green 
64 

buildings. To date, the average hourly wage for the individuals 

placed in jobs from The WorkPlace, Inc.’s program is $14.20 per 

hour, and 80 percent have retained employment after 1 year. 

Other job training success stories include: 

• A project that created new opportunities for residents of the 

Crow Indian Reservation in Montana, training them in hazardous waste remediation and ecosystem management; and 

• A project in Brooklyn, New York, that worked with local employers to determine their needs, then trained residents not 

only in environmental management, but also in ‘‘life skills’’ 

that prepare them for their future employers’ expectations. 

This sustainable communities agenda will encourage cleanup and 

redevelopment of sites like the one you describe in Bridgeport and 

will help communities meet environmental, transportation, and 

housing goals with the same investment. 

Q.3. Public Transportation and Climate Change—Public transportation saves over 4 million gallons of gasoline annually and reduces 

carbon emissions by some 37 million metric tons per year. We also 

know that the transportation sector is responsible for one-third of 

carbon emissions. In my view, any climate change bill must address transportation. 

What role could improved public transportation and coordinated 

land-use planning play in helping to reduce carbon emissions from 

automobiles? 

A.3. Increased investment in transit and better land-use planning 

around transit stations are two critical sides of the same coin. For 

example, an EPA study conducted with the Charlotte Department 

of Transportation found that transit-oriented development around 

the LYNX light rail stations would increase ridership by 6,000 trips 

each day, a 50 percent increase over projected ridership without 

transit-oriented development. Over their lifetimes, these homes and 

office buildings would reduce emissions from vehicle travel by 2.5 

million metric tons of CO2. The 2008 Growing Cooler report, which 

EPA partially funded, estimated that compact development could 

reduce transportation-related CO2 emissions by 7 to 10 percent 

from current trends in 2050. 

Nationwide, there is significant potential for adding housing and 

employment near transit. A study sponsored by the Federal Transit 

Administration concluded that 14 million households could be accommodated around existing and planned rail transit stations. If 

just half that number of homes were shifted to transit station 

areas, and those households drove 10 percent fewer miles, it would 

add up to 4.5 million metric tons of avoided carbon emissions each 

year. 

At the local level, there are often barriers that limit this kind of 

transit-oriented development. However, these barriers can often be 

overcome with Federal support. For example, local zoning and 

parking regulations often need to be updated to accommodate transit-oriented projects proposed by developers. 

The EPA Smart Growth Program recently completed a technical 

assistance project to help Valley Metro Transit and the cities of 

Phoenix and Mesa, Arizona, determine what policy and planning 
65 

options were available to promote transit-oriented development 

around the light rail system and how to prioritize implementation 

of these options. The resources developed through this project could 

be helpful to other communities that want to encourage transit-oriented development. 

Additionally, although transit-oriented development places a 

lower burden on a region’s infrastructure, investments may still 

need to be made to upgrade local facilities. For example, sewer and 

water utilities serving it may need to be improved or expanded to 

accommodate a significant increase in homes or commercial buildings. 

RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SCHUMER 

FROM LISA P. JACKSON 

Q.1. Each of you have outlined the need for a coherent national 

policy, with long-term goals and indicators of success in working to 

develop more sustainable, energy-efficient, and clean communities, 

that needs to be coordinated across each of your agencies. 

As you know, my State has one of the largest urban areas in the 

country, as well as some of the most rural. How are the policy initiatives that your respective agencies are undertaking going to affect both urban and rural areas? How do they fit into the vision 

of a coherent national policy on greening, energy efficiency, and 

emissions reduction? How can Congress help you to achieve this 

goal? 

A.1. As President Obama has said, our urban and rural communities are not independent; they are interdependent. The livability 

principles of the Partnership for Sustainable Communities were 

crafted to apply to all types of communities. We are still working 

on determining specific policy initiatives, but I can assure you that 

all three agencies in the partnership are concerned about protecting rural and small towns as well as suburbs and cities. 

We support the vision of a coherent national policy on greening, 

energy efficiency, and emissions reduction and believe that the 

Partnership for Sustainable Communities will help get us to that 

vision. Coordinating transportation, housing, and environmental 

protection goals will support development that uses green building 

techniques, target new development to areas where it makes sense 

to grow, and provide transportation options that will help reduce 

pollution and use less energy. 

For example, as part of EPA’s Smart Growth Implementation Assistance program, the New York City’s Mayor’s Office of Comprehensive Neighborhood Economic Development and the Coalition 

for the Improvement of Bedford-Stuyvesant asked for EPA’s assistance in using smart growth approaches and green building techniques for redevelopment in Bedford-Stuyvesant. Through a multiday workshop and policy analysis work, EPA will be providing community members and the city of New York with ideas on how development policies—from smarter land use to green building standards—can be adapted to achieve additional energy efficiency. It is 

anticipated that the results of the work could be replicated in other 

areas—urban, suburban, and rural. 
66 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MENENDEZ 

FROM LISA P. JACKSON 

Q.1. Transportation accounts for one-third of U.S. carbon emissions. Per passenger mile traveled, transit is one-third or more efficient than a passenger vehicle, but when you factor in the emissions saved from reducing traffic and changing land-use patterns, 

the differences are truly enormous. In the upcoming climate change 

bill will the Administration be supportive of using pollution allowances to fund transit as was proposed by the Lieberman Warner 

bill last year? 

A.1. Supporting transit and transit-oriented development are certainly important strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

Americans want improved access to transit and better housing 

choices. While a cap and trade system may directionally encourage 

the use of transit via an increase in the cost of transportation fuel, 

this indirect and relatively small signal will not be enough to significantly shift travel patterns. According to the American Public 

Transit Association, Americans are riding transit in record numbers, with 2008 marking the highest level of ridership in more than 

50 years. And a 2007 survey by the National Association of Realtors found that, three-fourths of Americans believe that improving 

public transportation and building smarter development are better 

long-term solutions for reducing traffic congestion than building 

roads. That survey also found that more than 70 percent of Americans are concerned with how growth and development affects global warming. 

Increased access to transit will help many Americans reduce 

their transportation costs. If people have more convenient alternatives, it’s easier for them to reduce the amount they drive. In 

turn, the more we reduce the demand for carbon allowances from 

the transportation sector, the lower the price will be in allowance 

auctions. Better substitutes for driving are also the key to protecting Americans from gas price increases produced by global oil 

markets. It’s no coincidence that transit ridership increases when 

the price of gas rises. 

Reduced driving also brings important co-benefits. Fewer vehicle 

miles traveled will reduce criteria air pollutants and can provide 

greater protections for those most vulnerable among us from the 

debilitating health impacts of air pollution. 

RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR BENNET 

FROM LISA P. JACKSON 

Q.1. A nice new neighborhood that is far away from good jobs and 

good schools, will not be a nice neighborhood for long. How can 

Washington’s policy expertise and resources be harnessed most effectively with local leaders who understand a local jobs market and 

who know where the good schools are? I’m impressed with what 

I’m seeing from this panel—the Administration obviously intends 

to take an integrated approach. But local housing and urban planning experts have the applied knowledge of how particular communities work—how transit can interact with affordable housing, for 

instance. In short, how does Washington do a better job of helping 

particular cities integrate their planning decisions? 
67 

A.1. We agree that local leaders know the conditions of their neighborhoods and markets better than anyone from Washington, DC, 

could. There has been a long debate in this Nation about the appropriate Federal role in relation to land-use decisions. While it is true 

that development decisions are and should be made at the local, 

State, and tribal level, it is equally true that Federal policies, rules, 

and spending influence development patterns. The Partnership for 

Sustainable Communities will support local leaders by giving them 

tools and other resources to articulate and achieve their vision of 

development in their communities, and coordinating the flow of 

Federal funds to the local level to support these visions. 

This partnership will work to identify barriers to more integrated 

environmental, transportation, and housing planning processes at 

the Federal, State, and local levels. Many States already coordinate 

their housing, transportation, and environmental protection goals 

and funding. This partnership will help ensure that more States 

think of these three areas in a coordinated way. When coordinated, 

these activities will emphasize environmental, economic, cultural, 

and social sustainability. 

Q.2. Sustainable development in the West means, among other 

things, managing our scarce water resources in a prudent manner. 

In your estimation, what steps are necessary to ensure we facilitate 

development that doesn’t further exacerbate our already precarious 

situation with regards to water, and encourages integrating conservation measures? 

A.2. EPA is working to foster a national ethic of water efficiency 

so that water is valued as a limited resource that should be used 

wisely. Water shortages have affected not only communities in the 

western United States, but all around the country. 

The 2009 report ‘‘Global Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States,’’ from the U.S. Global Change Research Program, outlines 

projected impacts of climate change. For not only the Southwest, 

but almost every area of the country, the report projects increasingly scarce water supplies and more periods of drought. This partnership will be working to remove barriers to compact development 

and encourage more water-efficient development all over the country. 

Compact development saves water in two primary ways: 

• Large residential or commercial lots use more water because 

they usually have more lawn or landscaping space that needs 

to be irrigated. Lawn care uses an average of 50 percent of 

household water use nationally, and that percentage increases 

in some regions depending on the local climate. 

• More spread-out development means longer pipes to supply 

water to customers. The longer the pipe, the more water lost 

to leaks. Drinking water systems lose anywhere from 6 to 25 

percent of their water through leaks and breaks. 

In addition to saving water, compact development saves money 

spent on water infrastructure because less infrastructure has to be 

built, maintained, and repaired. For example, modeling by the Envision Utah project estimated that, compared to a business-asusual scenario, compact growth could reduce water demand by 
68 

about 10 percent and reduce infrastructure costs by about 20 percent. 

The effects of developing more compactly are complemented by 

using green building techniques that reduce water use. In June 

2006, EPA announced WaterSense, an innovative partnership program that helps American consumers, businesses, and governments 

make smart water choices that save money and maintain high environmental standards without compromising performance or requiring lifestyle changes. The WaterSense program is helping to reduce water use across the country by creating an easy-to-identify 

label for water-efficient products that is backed by strict criteria 

and independent certification. Products with the WaterSense label 

use at least 20 percent less water and perform as well as—or better 

than—conventional models. The WaterSense program is saving 

more than 277 million gallons of water per year and saving consumers $1.6 million on their utility bills. 

To develop and maintain sustainable water management systems 

and protect ecosystems, States and communities need to meld the 

management of wastewater, drinking water, and stormwater to reduce water withdrawals, treatment volumes, energy consumption, 

and negative impacts on streams, lakes, and coastal areas. We 

need to treat water more as a real commodity and plan, design, 

and manage our water infrastructure accordingly based on the true 

costs—direct and indirect—of providing clean water for our communities. Maximizing the reuse of wastewater, greywater, and the 

harvest and the use of stormwater and snowmelt would reduce unnecessary treatment and transport of water and the infrastructure 

necessary to convey and treat the water. 

Q.3. I am glad you include rural communities in your plans for sustainable development. Can you talk specifically about the challenges to employing sustainable development initiatives in rural 

areas? Are there opportunities to work with the Department of Agriculture on these efforts? 

A.3. Smart and sustainable development makes sense for rural 

communities and small towns for many of the same reasons that 

it makes sense for suburbs and cities. Smart growth approaches 

help rural communities and small towns save taxpayer money, support Main Street businesses, and grow while protecting the very assets—open space, farmland, and natural areas—that make them 

such desirable places to live and work and that can help them compete in the global economy. 

There are at least two broad areas that present particular challenges for rural communities. First is transportation. Residents of 

rural communities tend to drive more than their urban or metropolitan counterparts. This is to be expected, given population densities and rural economies. However, public investments in transportation enhancements that create more walkable, compact small 

towns, coupled with economic development strategies that help existing communities become more vibrant and thriving, can allow 

rural residents to combine trips and take shorter trips. 

Even in rural areas, these strategies can make walking and 

biking realistic alternatives to the automobile. Basalt, Colorado, for 

instance, recently adopted a new policy manual to increase mobility 
69 

options and ensure that new street infrastructure is safe for pedestrians, bikers, and automobiles. Further, many rural communities 

across the country are adding public transit options such as commuter buses and vans that serve job centers, health-care facilities, 

and tourist destinations. 

The second broad challenge is water and sewer infrastructure. 

Many rural communities are struggling with failing septic systems, 

which pollute groundwater and cause water quality problems for 

surrounding waterbodies. The most common response to this problem has been to replace these systems with centralized wastewater 

treatment, which can lead to additional, uncontrolled growth. A 

better approach for these rural communities may be to replace or 

repair those failing systems with new septic systems. This approach respects the rural character of these places, is fiscally responsible, and allows EPA to better align our water infrastructure 

funding with a community’s housing and transportation needs. 

There certainly are opportunities to work with the Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) on smart growth and sustainable community 

efforts. As you know, USDA is responsible for many funding programs that affect the built environment in rural areas. These programs include: utilities and rural electrification, community development, small business assistance, water and sewer infrastructure, 

the provision of social services, and many other programs. EPA will 

continue to talk with USDA to better coordinate our efforts to help 

rural communities grow in ways that protect their environment, 

economy, and character. 

Q.4. A critical component of effective development is buy-in and 

participation from residents. Will the incentives for regional planning include incentives to integrate local residents into the planning process? 

A.4. Effective public engagement includes workshops that solicit 

ideas and concerns from residents and provide feedback on how 

these concerns are addressed. The public should be involved at all 

stages of the development process to have truly meaningful input. 

There are many models of successful regional planning processes 

that engaged the public on a large scale and for a long period of 

time. The Sacramento Blueprint process brought together more 

than 5,000 community members, elected officials, and business 

leaders in workshops over 2 years. Envision Utah incorporated 

input from more than 17,000 surveys and 2,000 attendees at workshops to develop scenarios for the Greater Wasatch region around 

Salt Lake City. 

It will also be important for these public engagement activities 

to make a particular effort to engage residents of disadvantaged 

communities, to make them feel welcome, and to make them feel 

like their voices are being heard and respected. 

RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CORKER 

FROM LISA P. JACKSON 

Q.1. In urban centers across the country, there are obsolete corridors—particularly commercial ones—where the population has 

moved along, but we still have infrastructure in place and not 

being utilized. We see this in places across my own State of Ten-
70 

nessee where large retail centers or strip mall type areas stand 

abandoned. 

How do we find ways to create appropriate incentives for private 

sector development in these types of areas that help overcome the 

costs associated with EPA or ADA regulations that often point 

builders in a different direction? 

A.1. The Partnership for Sustainable Communities will work to reduce Federal barriers to infill redevelopment in a way that makes 

sense—encouraging redevelopment that brings new homes, jobs, 

and amenities while still protecting the environment and disadvantaged populations. 

New Jersey and Maryland pioneered the development of ‘‘smart 

codes’’ that adapts building code requirements for renovation and 

rehabilitation of existing buildings, so that reuse of existing buildings becomes as financially feasible as, or even less expensive than, 

new construction. These States have seen success in stimulating 

new development as a result. During the first year the code was 

in effect rehabilitation work in Newark grew by nearly 60 percent, 

by 84 percent in Jersey City, and by 41 percent in Trenton. National standards are now commercially available from the International Code Council, for example, in the form of its International 

Existing Building Code. 

EPA is working with State and local governments to create incentives for private development. For example, EPA worked with 

the State of West Virginia to develop stormwater permitting language that provides stormwater credits to developers who redevelop already degraded land, such as large retail centers or strip 

malls. 

EPA’s Smart Growth Program is working with national standard-setting organizations to help revise other national, State, and 

local regulations and guidelines that can be barriers to infill redevelopment. For example, in many communities, fire codes require 

wide streets in places where more narrow streets would be appropriate. EPA brought together a coalition of emergency responders, 

local officials, and other experts to help demonstrate the benefits 

of narrower, better connected streets in reducing emergency response time and giving responders multiple routes to reach calls, 

while improving health and quality of life in the community. One 

national model for this type of collaboration is Harbor Town in 

Memphis, where the Memphis Fire Department worked with the 

Harbor Town developer to find street designs that protected public 

safety but also maintained the community character the residents 

wanted. 

EPA also offers resources to help small towns navigate the complex world of brownfields cleanup and redevelopment. Small towns 

may have a site needing assessment, but may lack the resources 

to get redevelopment started. EPA’s Targeted Brownfields Assessment program is designed to help municipalities—especially those 

without EPA Brownfields Assessment Grants—minimize the uncertainties of contamination often associated with brownfields. Targeted Brownfields Assessments supplement and work with other 

efforts under EPA’s Brownfields Program to promote the cleanup 

and redevelopment of brownfields. 
71 

Chattanooga, of course, is a national model for smart growth and 

revitalization, and we are interested in working with you to take 

advantage of your experience in encouraging redevelopment. 

Q.2. In the City of Memphis, an estimated 10 percent of the residential, buildable lots are vacant and the difficulties in land consolidation and the environmental cleanup often required is prohibitive for new builds. On the residential side of things, do you have 

any suggestions as to what are the most appropriate incentives to 

encourage development and utilization? Should there be any distinction between residential areas and commercial areas in your 

view? 

A.2. The economic downturn, housing market crash, and fuel price 

volatility have all contributed to soaring vacancy rates in both residential (roughly 11 percent of all homes are estimated to be vacant) 

and commercial (retail vacancies are projected to reach 14 percent 

in 2010) buildings. This is in addition to the vacant, buildable lots 

found in Memphis and elsewhere. 

Policies that encourage mixed-use redevelopment can stimulate 

development and put to use the existing buildings, infrastructure, 

and amenities that these sites offer. Further, efforts that better 

connect residential and commercial areas—either through closer 

proximity, better transportation or pedestrian connections, or a 

mixed-use redevelopment—provide residents and employees more 

transportation options. This can be a critical benefit in increasing 

affordability for residents and can be a powerful economic driver 

for commercial areas that may benefit from pedestrian-oriented as 

well as auto-oriented retail. 

EPA supports the National Vacant Properties Campaign, which 

works with communities to discover innovative ways of restoring 

underused and abandoned properties to productive use and disseminates these strategies to other interested cities. We believe 

there is potential for programs under the Community Redevelopment Act, or similar legislation, to be applied to this issue. 

As for the question about distinctions between residential and 

commercial areas, the EPA encourages all brownfields site cleanups to be performed through State Voluntary Cleanup Programs 

(VCP). Under the VCPs, cleanup levels that are protective of 

human health and the environment are determined based on the 

future reuse of the site. In general, cleanup standards are more 

stringent for residential than for mixed use or commercial reuse. 

The Brownfields Program recognizes the difficulties many communities are facing in addressing brownfields sites. The program provides communities with grant funding to assess and cleanup 

brownfields sites and information on tools and resources to overcome obstacles and barriers. 

Q.3. Do you believe that coordination between land-use and transportation infrastructure use needs to be mandated when planning 

occurs? Far too often such planning happens in a vacuum. How can 

we encourage reinvestment in aging infrastructure instead of building new? 

A.3. Coordinating land-use and transportation policies not only is 

a better use of taxpayer money, it also has the potential to produce 

significant environmental and financial benefits. For example, a 
72 

2002 National Academy of Sciences study concluded that modest 

changes in growth patterns would save $109 billion in road costs 

and $12 billion in water and sewer infrastructure over a 25 year 

period. In another example, the ‘‘preferred scenario’’ under the Sacramento Region Blueprint visioning process concluded that more 

coordinated land use and transportation would lead to: 

• Preservation of 64 square miles of farmland, a 38 percent reduction in farmland lost under the baseline scenario; 

• 69 percent of households living in walkable neighborhoods, 

compared to 34 percent in the baseline scenario; 

• 53 percent of households living near major employment centers, compared to 26 percent in the baseline scenario; 

• 38 percent more households and 41 percent more jobs within 

walking distance of transit; and 

• A 15 percent reduction in CO2 emissions per person. 

Therefore, we support better coordination of land-use and transportation planning. However, most State and regional transportation agencies would probably need additional resources for staff 

and analytical support to achieve meaningful coordination. Any 

mandate should be mindful of this implementation reality. 

States can save taxpayer money; leverage past infrastructure investments; and create jobs by directing spending to the repair and 

upgrade of existing schools, roads, sewers, and buildings, before investing in new infrastructure projects. Public reinvestment in existing neighborhoods signals a commitment to the area that can encourage private investment. It also makes neighborhoods more appealing to current and prospective residents and businesses. In addition, infrastructure in already-developed areas is likely to be the 

oldest and the most in need of repair. The longer repairs are put 

off, the more expensive the maintenance burden becomes. 

Several States use ‘‘fix-it-first’’ approaches, which direct infrastructure dollars to upgrade existing systems rather than constructing new infrastructure on the urban fringe. New Jersey’s Fix 

it First Policy, for example, focuses funds on repair and upgrade of 

existing transportation infrastructure, while the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the New Jersey Environmental Infrastructure Trust prioritize use of their Clean Water 

State Revolving Fund resources for programs that support development in State-designated urban centers, urban complexes, and 

transit villages. 

Q.4. Do you believe that under the Uniform Relocation Act the 

rules and regulations have made the replacement of older multifamily units prohibitive, even with multiple incentives included? 

Do you believe that such regulations promote an acceptance of very 

substandard housing in certain urban areas? 

A.4. The Uniform Relocation Act was passed by Congress in 1970, 

and since that time has offered protection and assistance for residents affected by the acquisition, rehabilitation, or demolition of 

real property for Federal or federally funded projects. It is an important tool for ensuring that existing residents are not unduly 

burdened with displacement costs. The program has been successful in ensuring that the costs associated with moving and finding 
73 

alternate housing solutions are covered. It is also a critical part of 

ensuring that the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods takes 

place in way that is equitable and protects existing residents. 

The Act has facilitated successful redevelopments across the 

country, turning vacant, blighted, or substandard housing sites into 

vibrant, mixed-use, mixed-income magnets for new investment. The 

Act’s requirements apply to many HUD programs, such as HOME, 

Community Development Block Grants, and Section 108 loan guarantees. The Uniform Relocation Act applied to the two examples 

below, which show that high quality redevelopment is not impeded 

by the act’s requirements. 

Nonprofit organizations and community development corporations often lead the way in the most successful redevelopments, in 

which public funds are used to support mixed-income and affordable housing redevelopments. For example, the nonprofit organization Urban Edge, recipient of EPA’s 2008 National Achievement in 

Smart Growth Award, demonstrated this approach in Boston in its 

Academy Homes redevelopment, in which more than 200 mixed-income housing units were created without resident displacement, 

and in Egleston Crossing, a mixed-income, mixed-use, transit accessible, and green redevelopment. Urban Edge’s approach prevents gentrification while improving the housing stock in urban 

areas. 

Another award-winning development, Southside in Greensboro, 

North Carolina, used smart growth approaches to stimulate redevelopment in an area where only 30 percent of the housing stock 

was viable, by rehabilitating existing homes and developing new 

single- and multi-family infill developments. As a result, the neighborhood, which in 1995 generated only $400,000 in tax revenue, is 

expected to generate over $10 million this year, reflecting an enormous increase in property values in this centrally located, transitaccessible, mixed-use neighborhood.