Anyone who has ever watched an episode of The West Wing or followed the national network’s television coverage on election night has a general idea of how common the use of polls has become to the policy formulation process in our country. Our leaders and public officials have turned to the tools of marketers to help decipher which direction the figurative winds are blowing before they step into the fray. So why wouldn’t planning and smart growth advocates do the same?

Last fall, Smart Growth America (SGA) did just that. It’s a coalition representing nearly 40 national organizations and many state and local groups that share an interest in “creating and maintaining great neighborhoods in which to live and work,” in building coalitions to “bring smart growth practices to more communities nationwide.” SGA commissioned a national survey intended to gain a better understanding about the role of sustainable communities in our nation’s economic recovery.

The poll was designed by Collective Strength, Inc., reviewed by Harris Interactive, and was made possible through funding from the Ford Foundation. Collective Strength is based in Austin, Texas and is led by Robin Rather, who has spent much of the last year crisscrossing the country talking to professional planners and smart growth advocates about the results of the survey.

“One of the main findings of the poll was just how fuzzed up the terms ‘sustainability’, ‘livability’, and ‘smart growth’ are for most Americans,” Rather said in a recent interview. “There is no center of gravity — no two people thought of these terms in significant ways. And that’s very frightening given how much these terms are discussed in planning circles.” Most Americans, she added, “have no idea what the ‘triple bottom line’ is or what it means to them.”

To help clarify this issue, the survey used a clear and easy-to-understand definition: “A sustainable community is an urban, suburban or rural community that has more housing and transportation choices, is closer to jobs, shops or schools, is more energy independent and helps protect clean area and water.”

In fact, 79 percent of the respondents indicated their ‘support’ for sustainability when defined in this way, with only 5 percent saying they were ‘opposed’ and 16 percent ‘still not sure’. When asked to rate the “importance of officials working to create sustainable communities,” 57 percent scored the topic as an 8 or higher on a 10-point scale.

Rather’s conclusion: “if you define sustainability in terms people can understand, you can connect with people. They begin to warm up to what it looks like.”

And it’s important, she told a recent national planning audience, “to understand the emotion of the age. Right now is a time of tremendous insecurity for a lot of people — political, economic, natural disasters. People crave for and there is a deep need for positive messages about going forward.” In Rather’s eyes, planners and others need to find ways to tie the old ways of thinking about topics such as transportation and land use to the “next generation goals” about jobs and the economy.

For example, the survey revealed an “enthusiasm gap” when transportation is presented as a stand-alone issue. The ideas of “expanding the network to handle the growing population” or “investing in projects with the greatest payback” simply did not resonate with survey participants. Note the link when jobs and the economy are included: 75 percent of respondents agreed that “infrastructure spending on roads, trains, and buses create jobs and help the economy get stronger.” Rather commented that “most people think housing and transportation need to be redefined because they don’t work for most people. If they are defined properly, the principles of sustainability and livability are quite popular.”

The survey also helps to reveal how sentiments are shifting when it comes to housing and walkability. Fifty-eight percent of the survey respondents reported that having “places to eat a meal or buy basic goods within walking distance” will have a strong impact on where they decide to live. Additionally, 68 percent agreed that they would accept a 5 percent or greater reduction in the square footage of their future housing if their new house was more walkable to shops and meals. And 82 percent agreed with the statement that “most Americans spend more than 50 percent of their household expenses on housing and transportation costs and that is too much.” Overall, 60 percent of respondents acknowledged how their tradeoffs in housing type and location might contribute to lower transportation costs, less time spent driving around, and creating a more enjoyable lifestyle.

The connections have been drawn — making our communities more sustainable means generating more jobs, lowering housing and transportation costs, and using our limited public funds more wisely. The importance of this work is bolstered by Smart Growth America’s statement that “82% of Americans believe that rebuilding the economy is the most important issue for our generation.” These are the types of projects America’s professional planners work on every day.

However, Rather offers some pointed advice to the professional planning community: “If you continue to talk about ‘quality of life’, the messaging will kill you. Most people are really with us, but we need to pivot our communications strategy.” She’d have planners stop using terms like “green”, “livable”, “sustainable” and instead focus on the effects planning can have on economics.

“People are tired of all the gloom and doom — people need a positive path to follow. As a country, if we can think about how we plan our communities to move forward, I think about how much comfort there is in that,” Rather added.

The question now is whether America’s planners are listening.

Citiwire.net columns are not copyrighted and may be reproduced in print or electronically; please show authorship, credit Citiwire.net and send an electronic copy of usage to webmaster@citiwire.net.

SALT LAKE CITY — In the current economic climate it is not unusual to find local governments “tightening the belt” by curtailing activities not considered essential services. All too often this can mean the slashing of planning projects and departmental staff.

There is a certain amount of logic to cuts: After all if a community isn’t growing, if there are no new developments to be reviewed, what is the point?

But — what we are seeing is that smart communities, like smart businesses, are using the laggard pace of the present economic downturn to lay the foundation for a high functioning and successful future. By engaging in highly participatory and increasingly regional-scale planning initiatives, these communities are developing the civic infrastructure necessary to succeed in the 21st century.

A prime example is the Greater Wasatch Area of Utah. It includes 10 counties and over 90 cities and towns, sandwiched between the Wasatch Mountain Range and the Great Salt Lake — a 100-plus mile linear oasis bordered by rugged mountain terrain and desert, home to over 80 percent of Utah’s residents. It was settled in the 1840′s by Mormons who conceived a plan for the area composed of one-mile square blocks with wide streets and interconnected villages limited to no more than 20,000 residents. These ideas were later implemented by Brigham Young, creating the pattern of development that today dominates Salt Lake City and its environs.

In the late 1980s, a group of concerned civic leaders coalesced around the issues of environmental protection, economic development, and maintenance of quality of life. This group, the Coalition for Utah’s Future, would later forge the foundation for the organization known today as Envision Utah. Created in 1997, it brought together key public and private stakeholders to help to overcome the jurisdictional fragmentation and “bunker mentality” held among units of local government. A key element: giving local residents, by the power of scenarios and choice, the ability to shape planning and growth management issues within the region.

Envision Utah’s first chairman was Robert Grow, a local business leader with strong collaborative leader skills. He explains:

“The Envision Utah Approach has become a way of life in Utah with its special blend of discovering and seeking to satisfy community values in all our planning and visioning, using scenarios of the future to show the public and officials the consequences of our collective choices, and leading change with diverse and trusted stakeholders and champions. This approach to problem solving and focusing precious civic and financial resources on highly leveraged strategies to preserve and enhance Utah’s quality of life is finding great acceptance as the best way to meet the challenges of tomorrow.”

Indeed, with regional population projected to grow from 1.7 million to roughly 2.7 million by 2020 and to 5 million by 2050, there will be plenty of challenges in the years ahead.

Today, Envision Utah continues its work to forge regional agreement over projects such as Blueprint Jordan River, a corridor plan spanning three counties and 15 cities. It has been instrumental in working with the Utah Transit Authority, the region’s two metropolitan planning organizations, and numerous cities to plan and develop an extensive system of light rail and bus rapid transit including incentives for transit oriented development efforts along the routes.

Most critically, the now tried and true Envision Utah “model” of fostering stakeholder involvement around scenario development and evaluation has helped to build a capacity for civic engagement that enables further community planning initiatives. “Envision Utah struck a chord when they recognized that many people cared about what they were leaving behind for their children”, says Brenda Scheer, Dean of the College of Architecture & Planning at the University of Utah. “The magic of Envision Utah is that everybody collaborates for common good, even though we may disagree on methods.”

But having a 13-year history with a unique organization such as Envision Utah is just part of the story. Today in the region, there is a palpable buzz in the air when it comes to planning.

For example, the University of Utah has recently attracted two of the planning profession’s “rock stars”, Reid Ewing and Arthur “Chris” Nelson, helping to build the reputation and influence of the university’s Department of City & Metropolitan Planning. As noted authors, researchers, and advisors to numerous governmental agencies, Ewing and Nelson present formidable intellectual and academic horsepower. “The university has a strong capacity for interdisciplinary work — energy, environmental, water — and we are building this in an environment of holistic thinking,” says Michael K. Young, President of the University. “We’re really knee deep into it now,” he adds.

Planning has also become part of Salt Lake City’s way of life. Ralph Becker, elected mayor in 2007, is a trained city planner. He and his staff have taken an aggressive approach to aligning public policy with sustainability. As evidence Becker cites a multi-modal transportation system, mixed and denser land-use policies, and a recognition that shifting times require strong government-business-neighborhood partnerships. The city has taken on such issues as zoning codes that accommodate solar and wind energy devices, and creating incentives for compact and mixed-use development.

The net result: a vibrancy that is lacking in so many other regions of our nation today. As a practicing professional planner, I’ve found it refreshing to visit a region that is so intently focused on moving forward with high value placed on the quality of civic engagement, and with leaders so committed to to the value of place — and collaborative decision making. In the words of Alan Matheson, executive director of Envision Utah: “There is a growing willingness to collaborate — among agencies, jurisdictions, organizations. Broad participation and collaboration are now the default mode for making significant regional decisions.”

Citiwire.net columns are not copyrighted and may be reproduced in print or electronically; please show authorship, credit Citiwire.net and send an electronic copy of usage to webmaster@citiwire.net.

The recent frenzy surrounding the formulation of an economic stimulus package has injected a new phrase into the American lexicon — “shovel-ready.” The phrase’s current popularity traces back to statements by then-Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama during the presidential campaign, capped off by Obama’s pledge, a month after his election, to launch his economic stimulus plan with a bevy of “shovel-ready” projects.

But assuming Congress soon passes the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, can all its infrastructure projects be truly “shovel-ready” — 100 percent completed plans, requisite environmental review and permitting processes in hand, plus the real estate acquired and prepared for construction? Probably not.

But we’re not without knowledge or capacity — if we use it — to fast-track the projects we need to bolster the economy and start putting people back to work quickly. Indeed, we’ve done it — and quite well — in a number of high-profile recent cases.

In 2005, when Hurricane Katrina knocked out the U.S. Highway bridge that connected Bay St. Louis and Henderson Point, Miss., the state transportation department reacted by issuing its very first “design-build” contract. The demolition of the old bridge and construction of the new 2.1-mile span was completed in 20 months, the project coming in under budget and ahead of schedule. In 2008, this $267 million project received the American Association of State Highway &Transportation Officials “People’s Choice” award.

In August 2007, when the I-35 Mississippi River Bridge collapsed in Minneapolis, taking 13 peoples’ lives, the city and Minnesota Department of Transportation were faced with a monumental task of recovery, debris removal, and the reconstruction of a critical transportation facility that carried over 140,000 vehicles per day. The transportation department moved quickly, however, to select a design-build team of professionals with a track record in bridge design, aesthetics, construction schedule and cost. By pursuing an aggressive accelerated schedule, with early completion incentives for the contractors, construction was completed in just over ten months from its inception.

Last June, spring floods wreaked havoc throughout the Midwest. Rains caused a breach of Lake Delton, in the Wisconsin Dells, one of state’s top tourism destinations. Even as television cameras captured images of several homes being washed away, local and state officials were pledging to restore the lake as soon as possible. Governor Jim Doyle quickly appointed his secretaries of the department of transportation and department of natural resources to work with local officials to design, permit, and construct the necessary repairs. The result: the necessary roadway and dam repairs were completed in under six months. The lake has refilled and will be ready for the 2009 season, restoring the economic vitality to many area businesses — small and large.

While these projects are all just a bit different from each other, there are some lessons that might be applied to projects fast-tracked under the federal economic stimulus package:

First — decisive leadership and clear direction from the top makes a difference. It creates a sense of unity and necessity which can have dramatic effect. By directing agency staff and channeling resources, chief executives convey the message of urgency, creating a mindset that “we’re all on the same side,” overcoming the petty turf wars that can plague any infrastructure project.

Second — the spirit of collaboration and a “must do” attitude that starts at the top can work its way down through the ranks to everyone involved in the process. In the Lake Delton story, this was apparent in design review meetings, where those charged with regulatory review worked side by side with the designers and contractors to make necessary project modifications in “real time.” It was also true on the construction site, where contractors from different firms collaborated with each other and the design staff to make the hundreds of daily decisions needed to expedite the project without sacrificing quality.

The United States has deferred and neglected our way to a staggering infrastructure deficit — $2.2 trillion worth over the next five years according to the American Society of Civil Engineers 2009 Infrastructure Report Card. According to the report, our country’s systems earned a “D” overall.

Yet it’s a bad idea — even in the name of economic stimulus or infrastructure renewal — to neglect environmental concerns by short-circuiting review processes. Instead, we need to find ways to streamline processes to meet accelerated time schedules, select projects with a realistic eye to their need as well as “shovel-ready” status, and then attack design, review and final permitting at all deliberate speed — as if it really matters, because it does.

The stimulus bill should be our generation’s equivalent to FDR’s Works Progress Administration, or to Ike’s National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, with the significant lift they gave our national economy and quality of life in great public buildings, parks, roads and bridges. Why shouldn’t we be as nimble, efficient and collaborative as they were?

David Boyd’s e-mail is dboyd@msa-ps.com.

Citiwire.net columns are not copyrighted and may be reproduced in print or electronically; please show authorship, credit Citiwire.net and send an electronic copy of usage to webmaster@citiwire.net.