Note: a version of this post was also published on the National Journal’s Transportation Experts blog.

This country is in desperate need of innovation. We are still mired in a recession triggered by a collapse in real estate that was driven in no small part by the exhaustion of the “drive-til-you-qualify” housing market. The housing market was showing profound signs of change before the real estate-triggered financial meltdown halted all development, with surging demand for more conveniently located, walkable neighborhoods. As just one example, the city of Atlanta added nearly 120,000 new residents since 2000, a population increase of 28 percent, after decades of serious population loss.

Two summers after the devastating run of soaring gas prices in 2008, we are again suffering from anxiety over our over-reliance on petroleum as oil gushes into the Gulf of Mexico. Just yesterday, the House Livable Communities Task Force sent House leadership an urgent letter arguing that Americans must be given new options for where they live and how they get around as part of the long-term solution to this potentially crippling vulnerability. As they noted:

The transportation sector accounts for almost three-quarters of U.S. oil consumption, and Americans consume over 10 percent of the world’s oil just driving around. … Livable communities offer a safer, cleaner and more economical approach to reducing our nation’s energy consumption … .

“Livability” has become the administration’s catch-all term for providing communities the resources and expertise they need to give their citizens the living and travel options they are looking for, while sustaining a high quality of life. With the old model gasping its last breaths, our local communities and metro areas are the laboratories for emerging innovations in building the next America. The best way to sort out the most promising new ideas is through the tried-and-true American way: Competition.

The principles articulated by the three-agency partnership are an excellent prism through which to evaluate grant applications from local communities. The trick will be holding themselves and their grant recipients accountable for collecting and evaluating data on the success of these projects. Did that new neighborhood near a rail transit station draw the expected customers? Did residents and visitors drive less, walk and use transit more? Are residents satisfied, and if not, what would they change? There won’t be a one-size solution, but we should all be able to learn lessons about what works in a given region of the country or in certain types of communities.

This is an unsettling time for many of us, but it also could be an exciting time of positive change and new discoveries. The Obama administration deserves a lot of credit both for recognizing the link between housing, transportation, economic development and environmental stewardship and initiating a bold partnership to make sure this coordination happens. We should support their impulse to prod innovation, even as we hold their feet to the fire in evaluating results.

That’s the underlying question in a fascinating cover story in Congressional Quarterly this week. Reporter Kathryn Wolfe looks at the challenges facing the Obama administration’s efforts to get three agencies – the EPA, HUD and US DOT — to link transportation policy with housing, environmental and economic development goals.

One of the aims of this three-agency “sustainability partnership,” though not the only one, is to rethink the policies that needlessly foster over-reliance on driving to live our daily lives. This could include, say, locating subsidized housing nowhere near public transportation; or building highways through city neighborhoods in a way that makes it all but impossible to walk or bicycle safely; or putting excessive clean-up requirements on centrally located industrial land so that it can never be redeveloped.

The efficiencies and smart planning the administration is trying to promote would be the correct thing to do under any circumstances. People today want and need a wide range of transportation and living options. Governments at all levels are strapped and can’t afford to make ill-considered, single-purpose investments.

But the tragedy in the Gulf and growing American anxiety over our intractable oil dependency make these initiatives imperative. Fully 70 percent of the oil we use is consumed for transportation. We need to provide more travel and living options, first to meet the demand that already exists for them, and second, to ensure that we’re not engineering ourselves into deeper dependency.

Defenders of the status quo, however, are perfectly happy with giving Americans one option, as the CQ article makes clear. The writer quotes representatives of what she calls the “highway lobby” and libertarian Randal O’Toole accusing the administration of trying to “make cities hostile for the 80 percent or so of people who are happy to rely on automobiles.”

Nonsense, Shelley Poticha, a senior adviser for sustainable communities at HUD, tells CQ.

“I think that it’s overblown, this whole notion that we’re going to just rip cars out of peoples’ garages,” Wolfe quotes Poticha as saying. “I don’t know how to say it more clearly. We’re going to give funding so that communities that are interested in updating their zoning codes can do that. Were not going to tell them how to do it or where to zone what. That’s a local decision.”

Even Brown University anthropologist and author Catherine Lutz, whose research found that “cars are the country’s favorite commodity,” conceded that most Americans want more choices. “There are a lot of people who would like to have more options, who would like to do more walking, who would like to have transit for certain trips,” Lutz told Wolfe, adding that “lot and lots of people who don’t want to give up their cars still want increased public transit.”

Also quoted in the article was Rob Puentes, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution, who took on critics who have simultaneously complained about the lack of detail in Obama’s livability push, while insisting that the programs were aimed at “social engineering.” Right-wing columnist George Will, for instance, has referred to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a Republican, as “secretary of behavior modification.”

“You can’t say it’s too vague and at the same time that the federal government is trying to dictate to people where they’re going to live and how they’re going to get around,” Puentes told Wolfe. “It can’t be both.”

The definition of insanity, Einstein said, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. So, given that our 1956-vintage transportation policy has helped make so many of our neighborhoods completely dependent on driving, which in turn creates the oil dependency we are bemoaning today, one would think proposing a new direction would be regarded as, well – sane. Kudos to CQ for bringing these issues to the forefront.

The need for a blueprint to address these imbalances could not be clearer, says Natural Resources Defense Council Executive Director Peter Lehner, in a guest post for the Infrastructurist.

We need a new direction that moves America beyond oil and other dirty fuels. This is admittedly a huge challenge: The U.S. consumes the equivalent of the 19,000 or so barrels of sludge released daily by the BP geyser in less than two minutes. Yet this eye-popping consumption level also affords opportunities to address our energy needs by focusing on saving oil rather than scouring the ends of the earth for more.

Lehner praises the Obama administration for adopting higher fuel economy standards for cars and trucks, a step that will make our nation’s vehicle fleet cleaner and more efficient. Lehner also calls for a climate bill that makes alternatives sources of energy more affordable and available.

But all roads inevitably lead to transportation policy, and Congress can make a real dent in America’s oil consumption by embracing a forward-looking reauthorization of current surface transportation law. The draft proposal unveiled by Congressman Jim Oberstar’s House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee includes significant moves toward increased transit options and stronger benchmarks, but could go further.

This is where the Transportation for America campaign comes in, and Lehner points to our coalition’s Route to Reform blueprint as an important guidepost. Adopting the policies in T4 America’s Route to Reform could reduce oil consumption by more than a million barrels a day by 2030, and Lehner seeks the kind of urgency that would make that goal possible.

To sum up, we must use every tool at our disposal given the massive scale of the challenge. This means focusing on reforming our outdated, wasteful transportation law. I look forward to working with Congress and the President on this goal, for the sake of the Gulf, the planet, and future generations.

UPDATED: Read this analysis and summary from T4 America on the HIRE Act’s ramifications for transportation.

President Obama signed the HIRE Act this morning in the Rose Garden at the White House, and T4 America was fortunate enough to have been invited to the event.

I was especially pleased to be joined by Patricia Griffin from PolicyLink. Patricia and her organization have been strong partners with the Transportation for America campaign. Increasing access to transit and helping people reach employment, groceries and other essential daily needs are equity issues as much as they are economic issues.

We need groups like these on our side.

While this bill doesn’t contain the amount of money for transportation infrastructure like the stimulus had last year, it does have a few important provisions for transportation.

It extends the transportation bill to the end of 2010, which will spare Congress (and transportation workers across the country) the headache (and uncertainty) of the continual short-term extensions that have been standard operating procedure until now. As we saw a few weeks ago when Sen. Bunning singlehandedly held up the last extension of the transportation bill before it expired, causing a shutdown at DOT, the furlough of workers, and the suspension of crucial reimbursement checks to states, providing this little bit of certainty will at least avoid a repeat of that scenario. The bill also extends the special rule permitting urbanized areas to flex funding to transit operations, which is critical to restore and retain transit jobs and maintain services at a time when transit systems nationwide are hemorrhaging jobs, reducing service and increasing fares.

The bill also restores $19.5 billion in interest back to the highway trust fund to keep it from going bankrupt before the end of the year. With more fuel-efficient cars on the road and Americans driving less the last few years, the amount of money the federal government gets from gas taxes hasn’t been able to keep up with the authorized amounts of spending in the transportation bill.

It’s a short-term fix to a much larger issue of how we fund transportation, and doesn’t address what those billions are buying us. We need long-term solutions and answers to both of those issues.

The President’s remarks about the economy and job creation were resonant. He addressed the importance of infrastructure, in terms of both short-term job growth and longer term prosperity, noting that “this jobs bill will maintain crucial investments in our roads and our bridges as we head into the spring and summer months, when construction jobs are picking up.”

In addition to President Obama, other participants included Majority Leader Harry Reid, Majority Whip Richard Durbin, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Barbara Boxer, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman, Jim Oberstar.

Senator Boxer’s committee is currently developing their version of the transportation bill and we are eager to work with the Senator and her staff on shared priorities and new ideas. Senator Boxer is a passionate defender of the environment who understands that the status quo is no longer acceptable. And her home state of California has been hit hard by deep cuts in transit where people need it most.

The bill President Obama signed today helps stabilize our transportation program and enables us to focus our full attention on a long-term transformational bill that prepares us for the 21st Century. This is our chance to get the changes we have spent months fighting for — increasing access to public transportation and quality jobs for all people, rebuilding broken roads and crumbling bridges and setting benchmarks that help us measure success.

Today felt like a sign of good things to come.

Photos by Quentin Kelly and Patricia Griffin.

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.

President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2011 budget is a step forward for transportation options and livable communities and contains $1 billion in programs and grants to help turn this positive vision into reality.

In this budget, the President and his advisers attempt to thread a needle between the urgency of unemployment and the longer-term implications of debt. Given these realities, it is gratifying that Obama chose to boost funding on transportation and livability as other programs face cuts. It shows that his team gets it. They understand that investing in the neighborhoods and communities of tomorrow can both create jobs and lay the foundation for future prosperity. Indeed, that dual purpose has been a theme of Obama’s domestic agenda throughout 2009.

The administration had signaled a new path last year with its creation of the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, a joint effort among the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Transportation. The administration recognized that making transportation choices, affordable housing and economic opportunity available to more Americans requires real collaboration among these key agencies. The partnership is on track to receive $830 million in the FY 2011 budget.

The budget also allocates $1 billion for high-speed rail, on top of the $2.5 billion in the current year’s budget and $8 million in grants from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Here are few other programs and pilots worth mentioning:

• $4 billion for the National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund
• $150 for the Sustainable Communities Initiative, including an inter-agency research effort on the transportation and housing linkage
• $150 million for Catalytic Investment Competition Grants, a competitive program to support job-creation and large scale projects in disadvantaged areas
• $527 million for the Livable Communities Program
• $32 million for the Healthy Communities Initiative

This is a budget praise-worthy for both the help it delivers today and the investment ushered in for tomorrow. It deserves our support.

Hearing President Obama call high-speed rail “the infrastructure of tomorrow” gave me great hope. Very rarely has transportation investment made the final cut in a presidential State of the Union address. The fact that it did make the cut this time really speaks to the president’s commitment to making high-speed rail a reality.

I’ve heard critics say over the years that the U.S. is too big for high-speed rail. China is the biggest country in the world and they built over the Himalayas and are now committing an additional $500 billion over the next 20 years. Saudi Arabia too is investing in high-speed rail in preparation for that certain day when oil reserves will no longer sustain the country. If they can do it, we can do it.

High-speed rail investment is about jobs, and not just temporary jobs, but long-term American jobs that cannot be outsourced. These jobs will employ Americans to build both rail networks and passenger rail equipment. This could be a real lifeline for unemployed automotive workers struggling to get and keep a new job. And these Americans will be going to work building a cleaner environment and more sustainable future for all of our children.

I have seen first-hand what investment in rail infrastructure and transit-oriented development can do to lift a mid-sized city like Meridian, Mississippi. Now there are people living in downtown, there’s entertainment downtown and a conference center has been built. It all started with a public sector investment done right. The vibrancy that returns to smaller communities as a result of rail service has improved the quality of life for millions of Americans. This is not about big city versus small, or urban versus rural. Chicago and Los Angeles will surely benefit from rail investment, but so too will places like Minot, North Dakota and Whitefish, Montana. This addresses the needs of our entire country and should be embraced by our representatives in Washington from all corners.

Of all the issues facing Congress, surely high-speed rail investment can transcend partisanship. As a Republican, I have worked with some the most liberal and conservative members of the United States Senate to protect Amtrak for people who depend on it. I see the potential for similar partnerships today and am heartened that we have a president who is leading the way.

Mayor John Robert Smith is co-chair of the T4 America Campaign, president of Reconnecting America, and former mayor of Meridian, Mississippi.

The President is due to make his announcement this afternoon, but the list of awardees has already been released. So who were the big winners? Certainly Florida and California, who got the biggest grants, netting $1.25 and $2.3 billion respectively. Although the lion’s share of funding is going toward a handful of corridors, 31 states will receive some portion of funding or benefit from new or improved rail service, according to reporting on the proposal. A few notable bloggers have already done superb analysis of the recipients of the $8 billion, starting with Yonah Freemark’s excellent corridor by corridor breakdown on the Transport Politic:

After months of speculation about which states will get funding from the Federal Railroad Administration to begin construction on new high-speed corridors, the news is in. As has been expected, California, Florida, and Illinois are the big winners, with more than one billion in spending proposed for each. But other states with less visible projects, including Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Washington will also get huge grants and begin offering relatively fast trains on their respective corridors within five years. The distribution of dollars is well thought-out and reasonable: it provides money to regions across the nation and prioritizes states that have made a commitment of their own to a fast train program.

Elana Schor at Streetsblog DC included a quote from Chairman Oberstar, who was certainly delighted at the first small step toward a true nationwide high speed rail network.

House infrastructure committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) hailed today’s first rail grants as “a transformational moment,” adding: “The development of high-speed rail in the United States is an historic opportunity to create jobs, develop a new domestic manufacturing base, and provide an environmentally-friendly and competitive transportation alternative to the traveling public.”

Information about all the corridors can be found in the White House briefing room online. We hope to post additional reaction and analysis later today or tomorrow.

Responding to his call for a jobs bill aimed at easing the unemployment crisis, the Transportation for America coalition today wrote to President Obama and cabinet members outlining the transportation investments can put the most Americans back to work, quickly.

The coalition, now with more than 400 members, also applauded the President for moving ahead on his vision for a world-class network of intercity rail. “Our coalition members have worked hard to make the case for just such an investment,” said John Robert Smith, co-chair of T4 America, “so the President’s announcement today of progress on 13 corridors is welcome news, indeed.”

The letter outlines key principles for targeting transportation funding to have the most impact in putting Americans back to work while also laying the groundwork for long-term economic prosperity.

First, Congress can save jobs right now and put laid-off public transit workers back on the job by offering emergency assistance to the hundreds of transit agencies across the country that are facing deep cuts in jobs and service in this economic crisis. This will not only keep bus and train operators working, it also will ensure that other Americans can make it to their jobs. Meanwhile, investments should be made in workforce development training opportunities targeted to workers in greatest need, as well as increases in funding for highway and road programs with the highest job growth potential.

Congress also must recognize that repair, maintenance and upgrades of existing roads and transit systems puts more people to work, faster than building new projects.

“It’s a no-brainer that funding needs to be dedicated to those transportation programs already in place – both to reinstate access to jobs, and provide transit workers with employment,” said James Corless, campaign director for T4 America. “It takes zero time and no red-tape for a transit system to rehire workers or find new employees if given the flexibility to spend funding to reopen cut service lines or repair already existing infrastructure.”

T4 America’s proposal also emphasizes the need to distribute investments towards forward-thinking programs that will begin to advance our nation’s transportation network, including high-speed rail and clean public transportation, both of which can also help to reduce dependence on oil. Crucial to truly revolutionizing the national system is to make sure that this jobs bill is short-term for 2010 only, with a commitment to creating a strong, long-term transportation authorization bill that meets our larger transportation needs.

“If President Obama is serious about another jobs bill that will truly impact job creation and spur economic growth, he and Congress need to allocate investments towards maintenance and operating costs for transit agencies across the country, giving them the ability to decide how best to put the money to use,” said Corless.

Second, we’re proposing a boost in investment in the nation’s infrastructure beyond what was included in the Recovery Act, to continue modernizing our transportation and communications networks. These are needed public works that engage private sector companies, spurring hiring across the country. Already, more than 10,000 of these projects have been funded through the Recovery Act. And by design, Recovery Act work on roads, bridges, water systems, Superfund sites, broadband networks, and clean energy projects will all be ramping up in the months ahead. It was planned this way for two reasons: so the impact would be felt over a two year period; and, more importantly, because we wanted to do this right. The potential for abuse in a program of this magnitude, while operating at such a fast pace, was enormous. So I asked Vice President Biden and others to make sure – to the extent humanly possible – that the investments were sound, the projects worthy, and the execution efficient. What this means is that we’re going to see even more work – and workers – on Recovery projects in the next six months than we saw in the last six months.

Even so, there are many more worthy projects than there were dollars to fund them. I recognize that by their nature these projects often take time, and will therefore create jobs over time. But the need for jobs will also last beyond next year and the benefits of these investments will last years beyond that. So adding to this initiative to rebuild America’s infrastructure is the right thing to do.

The White House Press Secretary also circulated a document ahead of the speech with details on President Obama’s plan. It outlined three key areas for stimulating job growth; small business, infrastructure, and clean energy and efficiency. Here’s the second point in full detail:

Investing in America’s Roads, Bridges and Infrastructure

Additional investment in highways, transit, rail, aviation and water. The President is calling for new investments in a wide range of infrastructure, designed to get out the door as quickly as possible while continuing a sustained effort at creating jobs and improving America’s productivity.

Support for merit-based infrastructure investment that leverages federal dollars. The Administration supports financing infrastructure investments in new ways, allowing projects to be selected on merit and leveraging money with a combination of grants and loans as was done through the Recovery Act’s TIGER program.