“We care about creating livable communities because it saves people money.” Beth Osborne, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Policy at the US Department of Transportation (DOT) was quick to bring attention to the economic benefits of livability at Partners’ “Building Livable Communities” forum on September 22.
Osborne estimated that creating livable communities could save the average household about 12-20% in annual expenses, with much of that savings coming from transportation. Livable communities aim to give individuals the option to spend less on transportation by allowing more cost effective methods such as public transit, walking or biking. According to the bureau of labor statistics, in 2004 the average household spent 19% of their income on transportation, while those in auto-dependent exurbs spent 25%. In contrast, households in transit rich neighborhoods spent just 9% of their income on transportation (on average, each of these household types spent an equal proportion on housing).
Even those who choose to drive can benefit from more transit friendly communities. In a compact city where many residents are taking public transit or walking to their destinations, commuting by car can be less costly in both money and time, due to shorter commute distances and less congested roadways.
Osborne’s focus on livability is part of the DOT’s new promise to consider non-traditional factors when making investment decisions. As DOT Secretary Ray LaHood wrote on his blog earlier this year, people across the country want the opportunity to “leave their cars behind,” by living near work and schools in “clean, green neighborhoods.”
In order to achieve this goal, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is now considering “key livability factors,” along with cost-effectiveness, when evaluating transit proposals. These factors include economic development, environmental, and equity considerations, as well as land use effects. The DOT believes that the new criteria “add up to a much fuller picture of how proposed projects will serve their communities.” As Osborne points out, this is not simply an idealistic vision; it is a clear strategy for cost savings.
In fact, the livability philosophy could save us money in much more than household transportation expenses. “Leaving our cars behind” requires a more compact development pattern that encourages infill development, reduced parking footprints, and contiguous growth. These strategies make the extension of city services such as water and sewer much more cost effective, saving taxpayers millions of dollars. Osborne referenced a study by Salt Lake City that projected a savings of $4.5 billion over 10 years due to smarter growth patterns.
The list of economic benefits goes on. Multi-modal transportation networks, such as those now emphasized by the DOT, better connect individuals with housing that fits their needs and their budgets. Worker productivity improves with better access to jobs and education (particularly for low income workers), and businesses are more profitable when they can connect to new markets.
DOT decisions can now assign more value to transportation amenities such as pedestrian friendly streetscapes and bike trail networks, which can enhance community character, help residents feel more connected to their city, and encourage people to be more active. These effects carry heavy economic benefits. Distinctive cities attract valuable knowledge workers and entrepreneurs, while active cities have healthier residents with fewer medical bills.
When we consider these benefits, a commitment to livability looks like less of a “feel-good” policy, and more like a policy that can save Americans money and make our cities more economically competitive. The DOT has not given up their focus on “cost-effectiveness,” they’ve simply expanded their definition of what that term means.
Economists and researchers like Todd Litman have been trying for years to get social and environmental considerations into the cost-benefit equation. In his report “Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis,” Litman points out that transportation investments have traditionally failed to take the full array of transportation costs and benefits into consideration, since many have largely been brushed off as unquantifiable.
For the DOT at least, those days are over. With new consideration for the full range of social, environmental, and economic issues, transportation investments can bring countless benefits to our communities.
Do your community’s transportation policies enhance livability or hinder it? Click here for more on the DOT’s commitment to livability, including resources for putting these principles into action in your community.
Osborne estimated that creating livable communities could save the average household about 12-20% in annual expenses, with much of that savings coming from transportation. Livable communities aim to give individuals the option to spend less on transportation by allowing more cost effective methods such as public transit, walking or biking. According to the bureau of labor statistics, in 2004 the average household spent 19% of their income on transportation, while those in auto-dependent exurbs spent 25%. In contrast, households in transit rich neighborhoods spent just 9% of their income on transportation (on average, each of these household types spent an equal proportion on housing).
Even those who choose to drive can benefit from more transit friendly communities. In a compact city where many residents are taking public transit or walking to their destinations, commuting by car can be less costly in both money and time, due to shorter commute distances and less congested roadways.
Osborne’s focus on livability is part of the DOT’s new promise to consider non-traditional factors when making investment decisions. As DOT Secretary Ray LaHood wrote on his blog earlier this year, people across the country want the opportunity to “leave their cars behind,” by living near work and schools in “clean, green neighborhoods.”
In order to achieve this goal, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is now considering “key livability factors,” along with cost-effectiveness, when evaluating transit proposals. These factors include economic development, environmental, and equity considerations, as well as land use effects. The DOT believes that the new criteria “add up to a much fuller picture of how proposed projects will serve their communities.” As Osborne points out, this is not simply an idealistic vision; it is a clear strategy for cost savings.
In fact, the livability philosophy could save us money in much more than household transportation expenses. “Leaving our cars behind” requires a more compact development pattern that encourages infill development, reduced parking footprints, and contiguous growth. These strategies make the extension of city services such as water and sewer much more cost effective, saving taxpayers millions of dollars. Osborne referenced a study by Salt Lake City that projected a savings of $4.5 billion over 10 years due to smarter growth patterns.
The list of economic benefits goes on. Multi-modal transportation networks, such as those now emphasized by the DOT, better connect individuals with housing that fits their needs and their budgets. Worker productivity improves with better access to jobs and education (particularly for low income workers), and businesses are more profitable when they can connect to new markets.
DOT decisions can now assign more value to transportation amenities such as pedestrian friendly streetscapes and bike trail networks, which can enhance community character, help residents feel more connected to their city, and encourage people to be more active. These effects carry heavy economic benefits. Distinctive cities attract valuable knowledge workers and entrepreneurs, while active cities have healthier residents with fewer medical bills.
When we consider these benefits, a commitment to livability looks like less of a “feel-good” policy, and more like a policy that can save Americans money and make our cities more economically competitive. The DOT has not given up their focus on “cost-effectiveness,” they’ve simply expanded their definition of what that term means.
Economists and researchers like Todd Litman have been trying for years to get social and environmental considerations into the cost-benefit equation. In his report “Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis,” Litman points out that transportation investments have traditionally failed to take the full array of transportation costs and benefits into consideration, since many have largely been brushed off as unquantifiable.
For the DOT at least, those days are over. With new consideration for the full range of social, environmental, and economic issues, transportation investments can bring countless benefits to our communities.
Do your community’s transportation policies enhance livability or hinder it? Click here for more on the DOT’s commitment to livability, including resources for putting these principles into action in your community.