Transportation For America » Obama’s livability programs help rural America too

Obama’s livability programs help rural America too

March 16, 2010
By Sean Barry

Is “livability” a valid proposition for big metropolitan areas alone? Some in Congress seem to think so, but we suspect that arises from a misreading of the term.

We’re talking, of course, about the Obama Administration’s initiatives for livable and sustainable communities. The President’s proposed budget allocates a modest amount of the transportation, housing and environmental protection budgets to promote planning and projects that integrate the three areas.

The idea is that investments in one should help promote goals in the other. So, for example, highway investments in a small town should have the effect of strengthening the existing Main Street rather than undermining it. Similarly, federally supported affordable housing investments should be linked up with affordable transportation, in areas served by public transit. You get the idea.

Recently, some members of Congress have expressed concern that this initiative applies only to urban areas. The truth is that rural towns and smaller cities have just as much – and very likely more – need for funds to help create smart plans and to fund innovative projects than metro areas.

Senator Mark Begich of Alaska said he worried that his small communities would be left out, and Representative Tom Latham of Iowa labeled livability programs as “boutique.” Senator Kit Bond of Missouri declared: “I’ve got a lot of constituents for whom livability means having a decent highway.”

It is certainly true that a decent highway could be a critical connection for a small town, but whether the highway makes the place more livable is very much determined by where that highway goes, the kind of development it promotes (or thwarts) and whether it is safe for older residents and children as it moves through town. These factors may determine whether the heart of that town lives or dies – as has been the case in countless towns across America.

If any place is in need of resources to make strong, smart plans and implement them well, it is rural America.

Deputy Transportation Secretary John Porcari said it well at a recent hearing: “it’s clear that livability really applies to rural areas as much as it does anywhere else,” adding that the standards would prioritize a revival of “the quality of life that many of us enjoy in small towns.”

No one is saying we should stop funding highways. In fact, one of the goals of livability programs and others like it is making sure we’re smart about which highways to build and which ones are in need of repair. That remains a top priority for the DOT and is reflected in the President’s budget.

We need more than one tool in the toolbox to give rural America the lift it needs. Many low-income Americans lack access to a car or have to share one with a relative. Seniors who are not longer able to drive need a means to reach groceries, health services and social events. Americans from both dense metros and wide plains struggle with long commutes and gridlocked roads that keep them away from their families.

Livability programs instruct transportation officials to look at the whole picture. Is this new road close to where people live? Does it help them get to work faster? Does it facilitate recreation and better quality of life? These are considerations that matter as much to rural Americans as anyone.

Senator Begich, Senator Bond, Representative Latham and others want what is best for their constituents. A focus on livability can help facilitate that. And one thing we do know is that the status quo no longer will.

Photo courtesy of Smart Growth America.