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.

Following through on a policy change hinted at for much of 2009, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced this morning that federal transit officials would begin considering expanded criteria as they select which transit projects to fund, bringing a new focus on improving livability and sustainability.

At the Transportation Research Board’s annual conference this morning, Secretary LaHood made it clear that a wider range of positive benefits would be considered in the application process for new transit lines or systems. These applications were being unfairly burdened by the previous administration’s cost-effectiveness measurement, which left out such benefits as energy efficiency, economic development and reduced emissions.

“Our new policy for selecting major transit projects will work to promote livability rather than hinder it,” he said. “We want to base our decisions on how much transit helps the environment, how much it improves development opportunities and how it makes our communities better places to live.”

Of course, the one problem that this will not fix is the very high demand for a limited supply of New Starts funding. Even under the old narrow rules for winning approval, only a small percentage of the many applicants were receiving limited funding, and even then, the federal government was only matching about half of local funds, compared with at least 80 percent for road projects.

Still, this change is keeping in line with the positive reforms contained in Chairman Jim Oberstar’s draft reauthorization bill released back in the summer. In June, we quoted the bill’s section on New Starts reform, noting that the proposal to remove the cost-effectiveness requirement and include other “livability” criteria “equalizes the treatment of proposed transit projects and elevates the importance of the benefits that will occur in the community once the project is built.”

The Obama administration and all the leaders at USDOT and the Federal Transit Administration are to be praised for their leadership in changing this program for the better. The next step is securing a greater share of funds for public transportation in the upcoming reauthorization and improving federal match rates to equalize the choices state or regional leaders face between new highways and new transit lines.

Update: Chairman Oberstar responded with a statement of his own praising the change, also observing that New Starts needs greater funding to meet the overwhelming demand. ”Now we need increased investment dollars to follow this reform, so that we can move forward with transit projects that relieve congestion, reduce emissions, increase our energy independence, and promote more livable communities across the country,” he said. (From Elana Schor’s post on Streetsblog Capitol Hill)

In our previous post breaking down the T4 America Blueprint, we discussed our national objective of creating an energy efficient transportation system that boosts our economy and helps America use less oil. Today, we’re going to look at this issue from a slightly different angle, by explaining how we plan to achieve this goal — and measure our success — through strong, accountable reforms.

It may seem obvious that our federal transportation program should encourage less fuel use. Unfortunately, our existing policies do the exact opposite.

Instead of giving Americans options like public transportation, high-speed rail, and walking and biking, federal policy still has a heavy bias towards new road construction, promoting more driving — even as Americans continue to drive less and use transit in record numbers. And while research shows that transferring even a moderate portion of our goods movement from trucks to rail would have a huge impact on our overall fuel use (not to mention congestion), recent federal transportation bills have done nothing to incentivize this smart and essential shift in our freight policy.

To jumpstart the needed transition to an energy-efficient transportation system and a secure economy, Transportation for America has created a road map to reform that includes strong, clear policies and programs that we recommend Congress adopt in the next transportation bill. Continue reading below the fold to learn more about some of the specific policies and programs we’re proposing to lead this transition:

Build our passenger and freight rail networks

Westbound Freight Originally uploaded by Clark Westfield

While the United States has historically lagged behind other countries in its investment in rail systems, T4 America’s Blueprint includes multiple programs to help us create a 21st Century network of passenger and freight rail infrastructure. Our Intercity Passenger Transportation program (page 35 in the Blueprint) would use a competitive grant process to create a passenger rail network to be completed by the year 2030, focusing on establishing connections between the country’s largest towns and cities.

Our Transportation Projects of National Significance program (page 40), echoed in President Obama’s plan for a National Infrastructure Bank, would fund the kinds of large-scale transportation projects that have a national scope and national benefits — but cross jurisdictions or include different modes, resulting in a level of complexity that poses a significant challenge within our current program. Projects of this scope deserve special consideration for federal funding.

This program would give priority to the projects that promote energy security, like passenger and freight rail. Additionally, the Green Freights and Ports program (page 93) would support the transition to a green, energy efficient economy by targeting federal funding to freight investments that will use less fuel and emit fewer pollutants.

Help create walkable, livable communities

Helping Americans drive less isn’t only about giving them better options — it’s also about investing in communities to make them more accessible and give people the choice of living near the office, grocery store, or their children’s school. For this reason, we’re calling for the federal government to create programs that will link up transportation investments with other issues like land use planning, housing, and economic development, (Sustainability Challenge Grants, page 42) and incentivize investment in biking and walking infrastructure (Active Transportation Innovation Program, pg. 42). Additionally, we support setting aside certain federal funds for direct investment in “livable communities” to support investment in transit-oriented development, allowing people to live closer to jobs and public transportation.

In order to ensure that our communities are accessible to transportation users, T4 America  recommends that any federally funded roads should be built as “Complete Streets,” and include accommodations for bikers, pedestrians and people with disabilities, when appropriate.

Revitalize our public transportation systems

Public transportation use saves us about 1.4 billion gallons of fuel per year, according to the American Public Transportation Association. In the next transportation bill, we are fighting to get rid of the modal silos that separate funding for public transportation from spending on roads and bridges, freeing up localities, regions, and states from inflexible federal mandates to spend money on specific modes, allowing them to decide which type of investment best suits their needs for mobility.

Our Multimodal Access Program (page 87) — which breaks down into categories geographically, instead of by mode — will give communities expanded opportunities to expand their transit capacity while increasing the overall pot of money available for these investments. For significant new investments in transit, Transportation for America supports creating a Major Transit Capital program (page 39) that would create a streamlined federal review process, thereby making it much easier for local and regional governments to get federal approval for new transit projects — compared with the long, uphill battle they often face now to build transit projects.

Our third webinar took place last week, and almost 300 people attended the session to hear from development experts on the connections between transportation policy, real estate development, and affordable housing.

• Policy Brief: Transportation and Housing (pdf)
• Policy Brief: Transportation and Development (pdf)
• Audio and video recording of the entire webinar
• Podcast audio file (.mp3)
  
• Podcast video file (.mp4)
• Sign up for more sessions on the webinars page

With economic crisis putting jobs in jeopardy, homes in foreclosure and entire communities in peril, Americans are facing extraordinary challenges in finding affordable and accessible housing options. Now more than ever, we need federal leadership to help make the critical link between our housing and transportation policies and creating revitalized communities where people can find good places to live and convenient ways to get around.

Shelley Poticha, President and CEO of Reconnecting America and the Center for Transit Oriented Development moderated the discussion and provided an overview of the Transportation for America Campaign.

Christopher Leinberger, Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institution and Partner of Arcadia Land Company; discussed the benefits of walkable urbanism and the linkages between land value and transportation systems. Ann Norton, Senior Staff Attorney at the Housing Preservation Project, provided a snapshot of Blueprint planning from the Minneapolis / St. Paul Metropolitan Area that links up transportation and land-use planning. Finally, John McIlwain, Senior Resident Fellow at the Urban Land Institute discussed policy options for locating housing around transportation nodes and creating compact, mixed use, mixed income neighborhoods.

There are still more webinars on tap. The next session is April 30 on Transportation, Public Health and Safety.

Sign up on the webinars page.