and business location, on the one hand, and local governmental decision making, on the other (Tiebout, 1956). This model has inspired an enormous amount of literature. It is controversial not only as a description of the real-world tax and service competition by local governments, but also in its implications that real-world processes produce “optimal” results. Nevertheless, the basic concept of competition among these factors clearly has a substantial measure of truth. (For extensive discussions, see Atkinson and Stiglitz, 1980, Ch. 17, and various essays in Zodrow, 1983.)

Although it is difficult to gain consensus about a region, it is essential for addressing regional issues such as transportation. Some regional agen-cies, as well as private citizens’ organizations, have been influential in establishing a regional vision, which always has a spatial dimension and broad-based perspective. This vision includes a mix of urban and rural, high-density and low-density, and contiguous and noncontiguous development, which can help residents and businesses develop a place-based vision. While a regional vision is eventually needed, it must be built up from community-level images. In Charlottesville, Virginia, for example, a clear description of potential development patterns (moderate-density housing or town centers, for example) is translated into the types of projects that builders will build and lenders will finance (see Box 1.4).

The case study of the planning of I-69 in Box 4.3 provides an example of integrated planning on a regional basis. It describes the planning for a highway incorporating environmental concerns, from the start rather than at the end, in the form of an environmental impact statement.

In many decisions, the most important question is, Who’s in charge? There are many major groups involved in transportation-related decisions—for example, transportation providers, local officials, and developers. Another important stakeholder group is citizens, who have the power to stop most controversial projects. The key is to engage all groups, up front, in a vision that they can all support.

Those who make decisions on transportation investments include both elected and appointed public officials and boards, along with staff members of transportation agencies. While much of the focus is on major decisions that come at the end of the planning process—for example, by the chief executive of a state department of transportation to construct a new highway or by the public transportation agency to expand a bus terminal—many important decisions are made in the course of the transportation planning and analysis process.

Although often perceived as routine or as part of the day-to-day practice of transportation planners and engineers, such decisions can have a

Front Matter (R1-R16)

Executive Summary (1-10)

Introduction (11-21)

1 Concept of Livability and Indicators (22-53)

2 The Importance of Place and Connectedness (54-75)

3 Measurement and Analysis of Livability (76-101)

4 The Decision-Support Process (102-129)

5 Data and Analysis Tools (130-150)

Appendix A Federal Data Provision (151-166)

Appendix B Workshop Agenda and Participants (167-170)

Appendix C Identifying Data for Place-Based Decision Making (171-174)

Acronyms (175-176)

Index (177-184)

Color Plates (185-191)