national parcel level relative walk/transit potential · pdf filertwp layer content ......

1 Relative WALK/TRANSIT Potential Layers BSI(C)2015

National Parcel‐Level

Relative WALK/TRANSIT Potential Layers TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. SUMMARY 1.1 Overview. 1.2 RWTP Description. 1.3 RWTP Coverage 1,4 US Interior Secretariat Request for RWTP mounted on GEOPLATFORM.gov 1.5 RWTP Development Phases 1.5.1 Demonstration 1.5.2 Phase I Development 1.5.3 Expansion and Maintenance (not in scope) 1.6 RWTP Benefits 2. RWTP SPONSORING ORGANIZATION

3. RWTP OUTREACH to Professional Societies and Potential Early Adaptors 3.1 Rollout 3.2 Sustained Media Stream

4. COMPENSATION

ATTACHMENT A. DETAILED RWTP LAYER DESCRIPTIONS A.1 DESTINATIONS Layer A.1.1 Design A.1.2 Implementation A.1.3 Final Disposition A.2 Relative WALK Potential Layer A.2.1 Design A.2.2 Implementation A.2.3 Final Disposition A.3 Relative TRANSIT Potential Layer A.3.1 Design A.3.2 Implementation A.3.3 Final Disposition A.4 Layer Operations ATTACHMENT B. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PLAN

ATTACHMENT C. RWTP OPERATIONS PLAN: Demonstration/First Phase Development BIBLIOGRAPHY ADDITIONAL READING Advocating Policies Advanced by RWTP

Boundary Solutions, Inc. National Parcel Layer Content Service Provider JAN 2015


1. SUMMARY 1.1 Overview. In response to the nation's need to apply best efforts to Reverse Climate Change by

reducing carbon footprint, this parcel level Relative WALK/TRANSIT Potential (RWTP) data model is being tested and initially deployed at a national level. The goal is to mount a national cadastre map on the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) sponsored GEOPLATFORM.gov displaying two new thematics, one being 1 ‐ 5 relative WALK and the other being NEAR, VERY NEAR and NOT NEAR Transit, starting with a few counties to test assumptions and automate geospatial processing operations. Scope includes a PHASE I proof of concept mounting of 990 counties, 60M parcels, RWTP expansion and maintenance, though mentioned is not in scope.

1.2 Relative WALK/TRANSIT Potential Description. RWTP is not intended to be used as guidelines, policy or any form of directive. Instead, these layers display spatial patterns of the relative proximity of each parcel on the screen to bus stops and amenities. With the only metric being 1/2 mile distance, universally perceived the same way by just about anyone, RWTP is composed of two nationally consistent, "irrefutable" patterns best directs growth to locations that best expedite transit‐oriented highly walkable development that best reduces automobile dependency and associated carbon footprint (see Figure 1 below). In its initial embodiment, RWTP is therefore limited to just producing spatial patterns (i.e. Relative WALK Potential indicator, with ratings from 1 to 5) rather than 'explicit values' (i.e. WALK SCORE ratings from 1‐99). The target audience is the land investment and development community interested in being up on the most current resettlement trends to maximize their profits as well as households who want to locate in transit centric, highly walkable areas.

FIGURE 1 The Two RWTP Layers as they will appear in GEOPLATFORM.gov

1.3 RWTP Coverage. There are 3,132 counties in the USA with about 135 million parcels. Most are Open Records with acquisition fees of <$200 per year. All of these together can be refreshed for ~$250K/year. Unfortunately, some 600 counties are Closed Records, charging >$200/year. Keeping these counties current would add a prohibitively high $2M/Year to RWTP operations. Therefore, they are to not be included at the offset. Closed Record counties not included on the first day will be added as their data acquisition fees are reset to <$200. Table 1 is a SUMMARY breakdown of US counties according to these categories:

1.3.1 Open Records Complete ‐ All content readily available 1.3.2 Open Records Incomplete ‐ Use Code, valuation, owner info and/or boundary data to be added. 1.3.3 Closed Record ‐ Counties charging greater than $200 for their digital parcel maps 1.3.4 No Map ‐ A parcel boundary map of this county does not exist yet.


FIGURE 2 RTWP Layer Content Availability

RWTP DATA DISPOSTION LEGEND COUNTIES PARCEL(M) ANNUAL ACQ.FEE

OPEN RECORDS (<$200) USE AS IS 228 24

OPEN IN NPDP (<$200) NEED ATTRIBUTES 816 45

OPEN RECORDS (<$200) NOT IN NPDP 453 9 TOTAL OPEN 1,497 78 $198,000

CLOSED RECORDS (>$200) 1,175 51 $1,850,000 NO MAP 470 6

TOTAL 3,142 135

1.4 Department of the Interior Request for RWTP to be mounted on GEOPLATFORM.gov. Below is an

email from the US Geospatial Information Officer requesting RWTP be added to GEOPLATFOM.gov. An FGDC resource, GeoPlatform.gov provides shared and trusted geospatial data, services, and applications for use by the public and by government agencies and partners to meet their mission needs. The concerns raised in this email are adequately addressed within this proposal.

US GIO Request for National Parcel Level Relative WALK and TRANSIT Layers on GEOPLATFORM.gov


1.5 RWTP Development Phases. 1.5.1 RWTP Demonstration.

Using readily available content for different regions, a Relative WALK/TRANSIT Potential Layer is developed for approximately 30 counties in 9 ‐ 10 different metros, testing procedures and perfecting automated processing. Results are loaded on GEOPLATFORM.GOV for testing and procedures and processing finalize accordingly.

FIGURE 3

Demonstration Metros

1.5.2 RWTP Phase I Development. Additional tax roll attributes are acquired and procedures,

amended as needed, are combined with the national parcel layer content using automated batch processing is applied to expand the Demonstration to a Proof‐of‐Concept Phase I Coverage shown below.

FIGURE 4 PHASE 1 Coverage: 990 counties containing over 60M parcels.

Marin Marin


1.5.2 Expansion and Maintenance (not in scope). Subsequent to Phase I, RWTP Layer expanded to include first all open records counties followed by all counties with a digital parcel have subscription rates <$200/YR.

FIGURE 5 All Counties with Subscription Fees <$200/YR. All Counties with a MAP and Eventually<$200/YR.

1.6 RWTP Benefits.

1.6.1 Benefits to HUD. Since the RWTP design intentionally mirrors the intent of the HUD, EPA, DOT Sustainable Communities Partnership Six Livability Principles, all benefits are described here are the parlance of these Principle. Exact language of pertinent HUD Policies and Programs is excerpted below and shown in FIGURE 6 RWTP advances the Six Livability Principles to expedite Transit Oriented, Highly Walkable Communities that minimize car use and carbon production.

HUD Priorities Affordable rental housing. Providing housing assistance for low‐ and moderate‐income families in the rental market is central to HUD’s mission. HUD is interested in research that improves the efficiency and effectiveness of housing programs, which include public housing, Housing Choice Vouchers, assisted multifamily programs, and FHA insurance. Priority research questions address (among other topics): (a) improving program operations and responses to changing market conditions;

Sustainable and inclusive communities. HUD’s goal of advancing sustainable and inclusive communities seeks innovative and transformational evidence‐based approaches to deal with long‐standing and emerging community development challenges. HUD is interested in research questions such as, but not limited to: (b) understanding and addressing persistent segregation along racial, ethnic and economic lines, and the role of mixed‐income housing and inclusionary zoning in strengthening communities; (c) strengthening urban resilience in the face of climate change, disasters, pestilence and energy shocks; (d) improving integrated and regional planning for land use and transportation;

HUD Roadmap Priorities that align with the four programmatic goals established in the Department’s 2010–2015 Strategic Plan (HUD, 2010: 11): • Goal 1: Strengthen the nation’s housing market to bolster economy and protect consumers. • Goal 2: Meet quality affordable rental homes needs. • Goal 3: Improving quality of life by using housing as a platform.

• Goal 4: Build inclusive and sustainable communities free from discrimination.


HUD Geographic Information Systems Enterprise Portal houses a series of mapping tools and resource leveraged by the addition of a Bus Stop Layer along with the WALK and TRANSIT metrics.

Strong Cities Program. The Strong Cities, Strong Communities Initiative (SC2) ... works to improve the way the federal government engages with and supports local communities to build local capacity to implement their economic development plans to achieve local goals.

Neighborhood Stabilization Program. RWTP support similar to Strong Cities Choice Neighborhoods Mapping Tool. RWTP support similar to Strong Cities

Location Affordability Portal. RWTP support similar to Strong Cities. Choice Neighborhoods is well served by RWTP for identifying priorities for replacing distressed public and assisted housing with high‐quality mixed‐income housing. PolicyMap. This 3rd Party resource to HUD supports the above programs. As such, it is also served by RWTP data including a long desired Bus Stop layer, at no charge. Since the Relative WALK and TRANSIT Potential layers from the RWTP will be in the public domain, parcel boundaries with the two geocodes values could be added to PolicyMap operations at no additional change.

1.6.2 How RWTP advances each of the Six Livability Principles.

1. Provide more transportation choices. Promoting transit use and shows development patterns that would maximize viability of walking and cycling Including the Bus Stop Layer for better assessing Transit Oriented development.

2. Promote equitable, affordable housing. Showing the best areas for locating housing offering minimum dependence on auto use not only encourage workforce housing but better assures it is located in where new workforce residents reduce commute trip and seeking retail services nearby causes the return of basic retail.

3. Enhance economic competitiveness. Eliminating grid lock, greatly reducing VMT enables investments other than creating carbon.

4. Support existing communities. Leverage amenities to guide Transit‐oriented, highly walkable dev. Inc. Bus Stop Layer

5. Coordinate policies and leverage investment. No Relationship 6. Value communities and neighborhoods. Directs Investment to thriving areas for healthy, safe,

and walkable neighborhoods FIGURE 6

SUMMARY of RWTP Benefits of HUD, DOT, EPA and Enterprise GIS

1.5.2 RWTP Benefits to NGAC. Loading RWTP on GEOPLATFORM.gov shall benefit GEOPLATFORM.gov three ways:

1. Expediting Sustainable Communities planning and implementation principles provides clear evidence that the federal government is committed to Climate Change Reversal

2. Makes GEOPLATFORM.gov a commodity resource. As the outreach program (Section 1.3) recruits the dozen top development professional societies (ULI, APA, NACO,...) to promote the RWTP Model, many come to see GEOPLATFORM.gov as first‐choice geospatial informational resource hub for making location and investment decisions that best contribute to Carbon Footprint Reduction.

3. Initiates the National Cadastral Layer, mandatory, elusive, Circular A‐16 Seventh NSDI Framework Theme


2. RWTP SPONSORING ORGANIZATION To be Identified, preferably US DOT. RWTP Data Sponsor Program Management Responsibilities include: 2.1 RWTP Development Management. To Provide: ‐ Oversight in the final design and initial building of the data model ‐ Quality Assurance in accepting the completeness and competency of the two layers. ‐ Upon acceptance, pass the content on to GEOPLATFORM.gov for loading.

‐ Quality Assurance includes spot checking for competency of GEOPLATFORM.gov ‐ Oversight in Open Records Incentive Outreach Program. 2.2 RWTP Ongoing Maintenance, Updating and Expansion. ‐ Review and acceptance of each quarterly submission of additional/updated content. ‐ Upon acceptance, pass the content on to GEOPLATFORM.gov for loading. ‐ Quality Assurance includes spot checking for competency of GEOPLATFORM.gov ‐ First responder to all public enquires.

‐ Oversight in Open Records Incentive Outreach Program

3. RWTP OUTREACH PROGRAM 3.1 Rollout. Major events spread over the first year playing primarily to the urban development real

estate and investor community showing them how use of RWTP Model can make them more

profitable and/or effective, explaining that properties close to transit and many other amenities is

where, going forward, where we MUST build to remedy increasing demand for Carbon Footprint

Reduction. Sustainable Communities development is promoted by playing to the profit motive of the

private sector and the service motive of the housing advocate NGOs.

3.2 Sustained Communications Campaign with NGO sector to maximize use and positive impact on

Reversing Climate Change.

3.2.1 Urban Land Institute

3.2.2 American Planning Association

3.2.3 National Association of Counties

3.2.4 International County Manager Association

3.2.5 American Association of Geographers

3.2.6 Urban and Regional Information Association

3.2.7 Community Sustainability Resource Institute

3.2.8 Institute for Local Government

3.2.9 American Institute of Architects

3.2.10 National Resource Defence Council

3.2.11 Others to be determined

3.3 Sustained Media Stream aimed at:

3.3.1 Development community urging them to make money by investing in increasing density of

urban cores and corridors and keep them abreast of the success of others

3.3.2 Local governments to reward Sustainable Communities project sponsors with fast track,

exceptions, density bonuses, financing benefits, etc.

3.3.3 NIMBYs Changing what NIMBYs want to believe from the 3 income groups living 20 miles

apart is good to We are all living back together again is good.


4 COMPENSATION TABLE 1

Order of Magnitude Estimates Build RWTP First Year

A.1** DESTINATIONS LAYER ‐ Includes DEMONSTRATION Costs Cost

Description BSI Price

A.1.1 Counties <$200 IN STOCK 990 Counties

Digital Parcel Layer Acquisition 60 M Boundaries $60,000

A.1.2 Digital Flat Record Acquisition 50M Records $150,000

A.1.3 Filtering 70M parcels for ~8M Destinations 400 Hours Labor $40,000

A.1.4 INCLUDES ALL DEMONSTRATION PHASE COSTS TOTAL $250,000

A.2 RELATIVE WALK POTENTIAL LAYER ‐ Includes DEMONSTRATION Costs

A.2.1 Digital Parcel Layer Acquisition $0

Digital Flat Record Acquisition $0

A.2.A Buffering ~8M Destination Parcels 200 Hours Labor $20,000

A.2.3 Recording how many buffers hit each parcel 200 Hours Labor $20,000

A.2.4 Relative WALK Assigned to each parcel 1,2,3,4,5 200 Hours Labor $20,000

A.2.5 TOTAL $60,000

A.3 RELATIVE TRANSIT POTENTIAL LAYER ‐ Includes DEMONSTRATION Costs

A.3.1 Digital Parcel Layer Acquisition $0

Digital Flat Record Acquisition $0

A.3.2 Bus Stop Locations from ~300 Transit Districts 400 Hours Labor $40,000

A.3.3 Merging Bust Stop Points from Transit Districts 200 Hours Labor $20,000

A.3.4 Buffering Bus Stops to add Relative TRANSIT Designations 200 Hours Labor $20,000

TOTAL $80,000

3 OUTREACH

3 Establish Collaborative with ULI, APA, NACO, ICMA, AAG,

URISA, CSRI, ILG, AIA, ALAA 700 Hours $70,000

TOTAL $70,000

TOTAL $460,000

ANNUAL MAINTENANCE for 75M Parcels ‐ N O T IN S C O P E

EXPANSION TO 120M Parcels ‐ N O T IN S C O P E

ANNUAL MAINTENANCE for 120 M Parcels

** Refers to sections in ATTACHMENT A


ATTACHMENT A

DETAILED LAYER DESCRIPTIONS A.1 DESTINATIONS Layer (includes all Amenities / Destinations)

A.1.1 Design. According to section 2.4 the RWTP Intellectual Property Plan, all commercially sourced

content is not shared with GEOPLATFORM.gov directly, but only the embodiment of all the 7M

parcels out of 82M highly likely to be destinations in support of Sustainable Communities. The filter

takes two queries:

QUERY 1. 3rd Party finds all nonresidential parcels with buildings/improvements.

NOT {Parcel Land Use Code = Residential} AND {Improvement Value > $0}

QUERY 2. To find all 'unimproved' and/or untaxed parcels without improvement value. Of All

parcels, use additive queries of these text strings within the OWNER NAME field. (and

others to be determined)

‐ Park ‐ Recreation ‐ Town

‐ County ‐ State ‐ District

‐ School ‐ Elementary ‐ Middle

‐ K8 K12 ‐ Library ‐ Hospital

‐ Civic ‐ Clinic ‐ Facility

‐ Community ‐ State ‐ Playground

‐ Church ‐ Temple ‐ Mosque

‐ Forest ‐ Woods ‐ College

‐ Municipal ‐ University ‐ Daycare

Destination Map Below is a combination of all parcels found in Query 1 and Query 2 merged together in a

single parcel Layer of about 8% of the total parcels.

FIGURE 5

Destination Map Layer (All parcels found as the combined result of Query 1 and Query 2)

A.1.2 Implementation. Current stock is amended with direct acquisition from compliant counties until all open

record parcel map databases are in the national parcel layer.

A.1.3 Final Disposition. The DESTINATION LAYER is not submitted to end user since, by having the UNIT

COUNT value included, competes with commercially offered services.


A.2 Relative WALK Potential Layer

A.2.1 Design. First step is to buffer the boundary of each and every destination/amenity parcel in

the DESTINATION Layer by a distance of 1/2 mile. If the UNIT count of a DESTINATION parcel

is greater than 1, the buffer around such parcel is generated the same number of times as

its assigned UNIT Count. For example, a parcel with the USE CODE of Commercial and a UNIT

Count of 8 will have eight buffers around itself, representing potentially 8 different retail

outlets to walk to rather than the DEFAULT count of 1.

FIGURE 6

Destination Parcels buffered by 1/2 Mile

Next, the total number of buffers that touch or surround a parcel is assigned to each parcel as its

Relative WALK Potential. As can be seen in FIGURE 7, the bright colors represent areas from where the

WALK Potential is intense to where there is no potential at all.

FIGURE 7

Countywide Relative WALK Potential Layer


A.2.2 Implementation. All needed additional content, boundaries and attributes are assembled and

subjected to a worm that assigns a Relative WALK Potential value to each and every parcel in

the national parcel layer.

A.2.3 Final Disposition. The final disposition of the Relative WALK Potential layer is one of thee

delivered components including:

A.2.3.1 Digital Parcel Boundaries

A.2.3.2 Relative WALK Potential as an extended attribute assigned to each parcel boundary.

When Relative WALK Potential values (1 ‐ 5) have been assigned to all 82M open record

parcels, the result is submitted to be displayed on GEOPLATFORM.GOV as a thematic

Layer.

FIGURE 8

Sample Relative WALK Potential Layer displayed within GEOPLATFORM.gov

Numbers are assigned to each parcel representing the relative number of 1/2 mile buffers

around each and every destination that touch or surround its parcel boundary polygon.

For example, if a parcel were within or touching 92 1/2 mile buffers, it is assigned a

Relative Walk Potential of 3 (third regime: 76 – 119)


A.3 Relative TRANSIT Potential Layer

A.3.1 Design. A rapid/mass transit station and bus stop Layer is established as said facilities are present within the 1,710 counties in the initial implementation of existing open record counties. A 1/4 and 1/2 Mile walk distance buffer is generated around every transit facility and every parcels within or touching or not touching such buffers are assigned a Transit Access Values as follows:

< 1/4 MILE of Transit (Very Near) < 1/2 MILE of Transit (Somewhat Near) NOT NEAR Transit (Not Near)

A.3.2 Implementation. Acquisition and compilation of the needed bus stop / transit station Layer

will start with known sources of mass transit stations at a national level and will be

augmented by outreach to every COG to collect all available digital lat long of every point of

access to or egress from every bus, train and mass transit operation in each county. As

collected, the NPLCSP buffers each point and assigns Relative Transit Access Values (see

above) to each and every parcel in the 1,710 open record counties.

A.3.3 Final Disposition. The final disposition of the Transit Potential layer is one of thee delivered

components including:

A.3.3.1 Digital Parcel Boundaries

A.3.3.2 Relative WALK Potential Value as an extended attribute

A.3.3.3 TRANSIT Potential Value as an extended attribute

When TRANSIT Potential values have been assigned to all 82M open record parcels, the

result is submitted to be displayed on GEOPLATFORM.GOV as a thematic parcel Layer.

FIGURE 9

Sample Relative TRANSIT Potential Layer displayed within GEOPLATFORM.gov

Relative Transit Potential Each parcel is rated whether its boundary

is with 1/4Mile, ½ Mile or NOT near transit (>1/2 Mile).


A.4 Relative WALK and TRANSIT Potential Layer Operation

To minimize risk, meet expectations, avoid data usage constraints and hold down costs, on the

first day the RWTP shall be limited in two ways:

A.4.1 Limited Coverage. As mentioned in Section 1.2, the only digital parcel map databases to

be included in the RWTP are from counties charging a subscription price of $200 or less.

All other counties are considered closed record counties. In addition, even if the

subscription price is <= $200, but there are constraints on its reuse of any kind, said

content shall also be considered closed record and not included due to potential data

sharing violations.

A.4.2 No Situs Address Use. In keeping with the intent of Section 3, Intellectual Property Plan,

situs addresses cannot be referenced within the RWTP due to attendant commercial value

preventing public domain use. This is not a problem, however since the INITIAL intent of

the RWTP is not to retrieve and view a specific address but to look at patterns of relative

potential. Further reason to discourage expectations of individual parcel ratings is that

each parcel is only assigned a relative category of WALK potential. A specific rating

requires subsequent use of a dedicated WALK Score services. On the up side, RWTP is

aimed at enabling everyone to better determination of where to invest in development

that accentuates the positive of the existing situation to maximize creation of highly

pedestrian oriented transit, centric communities that minimize automobile use and

attendant carbon footprint.

In regards to locating a parcel, instead, GEOPLATFORM.gov is to set an expectation that

the user can zoom to any community / place by selecting a location in the USGS

Geographic Names Information System (GNIS). As for land base, the parcels will fit

reasonably well 90% of the time over public domain or commercial land bases, the choice

is up to GEOPLATFORM.gov. On the first day, no reference to individual addresses will be

provided, only place names.


ATTACHMENT B

RWTP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PLAN

B.1 RWTP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PLAN

No Private Sector Data is shared directly with GEOPLATFORM.gov. as follows: B.1.1 Improvement Value. Exclusively in‐house function to identify destinations records. B.1.2 Owner Name. Exclusively in‐house function to identify destinations records. B.1.3 Use Code. Exclusively in‐house function to identify destinations records. B.1.4 Unit Count. Of all records, ~7% are released to NPLCSP with only Unit Count and lat long

values. However, Unit Count is never shared with the GEOPLATFORM.gov. Instead, half mile buffers are generated around each Destination Parcel boundary. IF unit count is 2 or more, 2 or more copies of the buffer are generated.

The boundary of each parcel is in turn intersected with all Destination Parcel Buffers to count up how many Destinations can be walked to within 1/2 mile from the destination's perimeter. Funded by the GEOPLATFORM.gov, geoderivatives

Relative WALK Potential indicator values (1 ‐ 5) enter the public domain derived in part from private sector content but with no prior art.

Relative TRANSIT Potential indicator values (Very, Somewhat, Not near) enter the public domain

derived exclusively from public


ATTACHMENT C

RWTP Operations Plan C.1 Initial Development. Expected to take three months to compile all needed content, Figure C1 is

a summary statement of what is involved. (for details, see Section 2).

FIGURE C1 Initial Development Phase: First Six Months

C.2 Ongoing Expansion and Updating Phase. Figure 4 below is an explanation of how the NPCSGM is

expanded over time and both the initial and expansion content kept current from year to year. (for details, see Section 2).

FIGURE 4 Ongoing Expansion and Updating Phase: 3 Years


ADDITIONAL READING Publications Advocating Policies Advanced by Relative WALK/TRANSIT Potential Map Layers

1. American Lung Association in California. Spring Land Use. Climate Change & Public Health Issue

Brief, 2010 http://www.lung.org/associations/states/california/assets/pdfs/sb‐375_issue‐brief_final.pdf

2. Anderson. Why Smart Growth ‐ A Primer. International City/County Management Association Smart Growth Network, 2013 http://www.epa.gov/dced/pdf/WhySmartGrowth_bk.pdf

3. Andres Duany, Jeff Speck, Mike Lydon. The Smart Growth Manual. Viking Press, October 2009 http://www.amazon.com/Smart‐Growth‐Manual‐Andres‐Duany/dp/0071376755

4. Andres Duany. Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. Viking Press, 2014 http://www.amazon.com/Suburban‐Nation‐Sprawl‐Decline‐American/dp/0865477507

5. David Wise. Affordable Housing in Transit‐Oriented Development: Key Practices. DIANE Publishing. 1997 http://www.worldcat.org/title/transit‐villages‐for‐the‐21st‐century‐by‐michael‐bernick‐and‐robert‐cervero/oclc/44948087

6. Derek Prall. Redesigning the suburbs. American City and County. Aug 12, 2014 http://americancityandcounty.com/sustainable‐communities/redesigning‐suburbs

7. EPA Smart Growth and Economic Success. US Department of Environmental Protection. March 2014 http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/economic_success.htm#infill

8. EPA Measuring the Air Quality and Transportation Impacts of Infill Development. US Department of Environmental Protection Agency. October 2013 http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/impacts_infill.htm

9. EPA Local Government Climate and Energy Strategy Guides. Smart Growth. A Guide to Developing

and Implementing Greenhouse Gas Reduction Programs. US Environmental Protection Agency. March 2010 http://www.epa.gov/statelocalclimate/documents/pdf/smart_growth_guide.pdf

10. F. Kaid Benfield. Jutka Terris. Nancy Vorsanger. Solving Sprawl: Models Of Smart Growth In

Communities Across America. Viking Press, 2012 http://books.google.com/books?id=3RBZdoshuukC&sitesec=buy&source=gbs_buy_r

11. Garard Green. Uniting the Built and Natural Environments. American Society of Landscape

Architects, December, 2014 http://dirt.asla.org/

12. Getting Smart about Climate Change. International City/County Managers Association, 2010

http://transformgov.org/en/knowledge_network/documents/kn/document/105215/getting_smart_about_climate_change


13. Hough Barton. Sustainable Communities. Potential for eco neighborhoods. Earthscan, 2000 http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=XBNEAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=sustainable+communities+climate+change+reversal&ots=E8DdrN4Iy7&sig=J9wtQOzeMS3_AW3hJ6MQSYOKlSU#v=onepage&q&f=false

14. Jeff Speck. Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America. One Step at a Time. Viking Press, 2014 http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FWalkable‐City‐Downtown‐Save‐America%2Fdp%2F0865477728&ei=lMquVLDpCYywogTqwIHADA&usg=AFQjCNER6j8_PQf‐zzhogSnTlAiUR1wSgw&sig2=vcKJB81S_Gb4CJrI8hi4uA&bvm=bv.83339334,d.cGU

15. Jeff Speck. Salo. Stop climate change: Move to the city. start walking. Nov 2012 http://www.salon.com/2012/11/03/stop_climate_change_move_to_the_city_start_walking/

16. Joe Holmes and James van Hemert. Transit Oriented Development, Sustainable Community Development Code. Research Monologue Series. Urban Form, Transportation, The Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute. September, 2007 http://www.law.du.edu/images/uploads/rmlui/rmlui‐sustainable‐transitorienteddevelopment.pdf

17. John Bellamy Foster, Brett Clark and Richard York. The Midas Effect: A Critique of Climate Change Economics. Institute of Social Studies. DEC 2009 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467‐7660.2009.01613.x/full

18. HRB, Transit‐Oriented Development and Joint Development in the United States: A literature Review. Highway Research Board. October 2004 http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=726711

19. Mark Rosedland. Toward Sustainable Communities: Resources for Citizens and Their Governments. Business & Ecs, 2005 http://www.amazon.com/Toward‐Sustainable‐Communities‐Solutions‐Governments/dp/0865717117#reader_0865717117

20. Michael Bernick and Robert Cervero. Transit villages for the 21st Century. MGraw‐Hill. 1997 http://www.worldcat.org/title/transit‐villages‐for‐the‐21st‐century‐by‐michael‐bernick‐and‐robert‐cervero/oclc/44948087

21. Mixed‐Income Housing Near Transit: Increasing Affordability With Location Efficiency. Reconnecting America. November 2009 http://reconnectingamerica.org/resource‐center/books‐and‐reports/2009/tod‐201‐mixed‐income‐housing‐near‐transit‐increasing‐affordability‐with‐location‐efficiency/

22. Norman. J., MacLean. H. and Kennedy. Comparing High and Low Residential Density: Life‐Cycle Analysis of Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Journal of Urban Planning and Development. Vol. 132. No. 1 : pp. 10‐21. March 2006 http://ascelibrary.org/doi/full/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733‐9488%282006%29132%3A1%2810%29

23. Peter Newman, Jeffrey Kenworthy. Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence. Island Press. 1999 http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=pjatbiavDZYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR13&dq=sustainable+communities+climate+change+reversal&ots=BaJPqPqyxw&sig=zzZdvvw8EEk‐e7npu4phlsYHsZo#v=onepage&q&f=false


24. Profiles of Business. Leadership on Smart Growth. New Partnerships Demonstrate the Economic Benefits of Reducing Sprawl. National Association of Local Government Environmental Professionals, 1999 http://www.nalgep.org/uploads/pdf/publi12.pdf

25. Partnership for Sustainable Communities. EPA‐HUD‐DOT. January 2010 http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/SCP‐Fact‐Sheet.pdf

26. Reid Ewing. Rutgers University. Rolf Pendall. Cornell University. Don Chen. Smart Growth America. Measuring Sprawl and its Impacts. Mix of jobs. shops and housing Residential Density. Smart Growth America, 2003 http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/MeasuringSprawl.PDF

27. Policy Guide on Smart Growth. Updated Guide. American Planning Association Board of Directors. Adopted by Chapter Delegate Assembly. APA. April 2012 https://www.planning.org/

28. Shifting Suburbs, Reinventing Infrastructure for Compact Development. Infrastructure Initiative. Urban Land Institute, 2013 http://www.uli.org/wp‐content/uploads/ULI‐Documents/Shifting‐Suburbs.pdf

29. Smart Growth and Sustainable Development. Municipal Research and Services Center, 2012 http://www.sustainablecommunitiescollaborative.com/ourstory/

30. Tackling Global Climate Change at the Local Level. The C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group. Applying the Bloomberg Philanthropies Approach to Combat Climate Change. Bloomberg Philanthropies, 2014 http://www.bloomberg.org/program/environment/?gclid=COKv76HQ9sICFciDfgodjAQAjg

31. Ted Cochin. Access to Jobs Via Transit Tool ‐ Smart Location Mapping. EPA Office of Policy Office of Sustainable Communities Smart Growth, 2012 http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/smartlocationdatabase.htm#Trans45

32. Transit‐oriented Development in the United States: Experience, Challenges and Prospects. Transportation Research Board. National Academies, 2004 http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=a6__pNpM44MC&oi=fnd&pg=PA3&dq=transit+oriented+development&ots=8TJZqhL8ou&sig=dVCv1bhGEN1A7bHrZ8T7JEYhvRc#v=onepage&q=transit%20oriented%20development&f=false

33. Walkable 101: The Walkability Workbook. Walkable and Livable Communities Institute. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2014 http://www.walklive.org/project/walkability‐workbook/#formBuilderCSSIDDownload_Walkability_Workbook_Components?PHPSESSID=e3ffh7gtb1qq4c1g53ru1666q1

34. Walkable Neighborhoods. Walk Score website, 2014 https://www.walkscore.com/walkable‐neighborhoods.shtml33. . What is Walkability and why is it so cool? Walkable Communities Inc, 2012 http://www.walkable.org/

35. White House Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative (NRI), Choice Neighborhoods Promising Practice Guides, HUD Choice Neighborhoods Program, 2014 http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/ph/cn/cntechnicalassistance/ppg


36. Zachary Shahan. Transit‐Oriented Development Adds Value And Affordability For Residents. Clean Technica, January 2015 http://cleantechnica.com/2015/01/02/transit‐oriented‐development‐adds‐value‐affordability‐ residents/