Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies (2022)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

3   1.1 Project Background and Objectives Housing and transportation are the two highest annual costs each year for the average American household, together comprising roughly half of annual household budgets (CTOD and CNT 2006; HUD n.d.a). Many households make trade-offs between the two. Some households may forego automobile ownership and endure long commutes in the effort to reduce costs. These house- holds are effectively trading off money and time. Yet other low-income households are unable to make this trade-off if they lack the ability to own and operate a car necessary to accessing lower- cost housing, or if they rely on publicly subsidized project-based affordable housing. Within the nation’s largest metropolitan areas, zero-car households comprise roughly 10% of the population, and the highest percentages of zero-car households have lower incomes (Tomer 2011). Travel costs are a significant burden for many low-income households (Banjee 2018). Transit access and affordability is critical to enabling low-income households to access regional socio-economic opportunity (Sanchez 2008; Karner 2014). How well transit serves to connect areas of a region with concentrations of affordable housing greatly impacts the lives of those who live in these neighborhoods. Yet transit agencies have little direct impact on the plans and policies of those who build and manage affordable housing, on employer location decisions, or on those who make local land use decisions. The Transit Cooperative Research Program identified the need to better understand current efforts by transit agencies to coordinate with affordable housing. TCRP Synthesis Project J-07, SB-34 “Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies,” was developed to identify the potential policy and programmatic mechanisms to coordinate public transit services and capital investments with the construction, operation, and preservation of affordable housing. This report synthesizes the state of the practice of transit system coordination with affordable housing initiatives in the broader sense, including, but not limited to, transit-oriented development (TOD). MZ Strategies, LLC, served as principal investigator for Synthesis Project J-07/SB-34. The study team sought to identify existing practices utilized by transit agencies to coordinate with afford- able housing stakeholders, including within local and regional governments. The study objectives include consideration of transit service coordination to provide regional mobility to residents of affordable housing and connect neighborhoods with high concentrations of housing affordable to broader regional economic opportunity. The study also considers specific initiatives transit agencies are engaged in to support affordable housing plans and projects, including to utilize transit real estate assets. The extent to which transit agencies are involved in these types of programs and their motivation for engagement provide insights into tangible ways that housing and transit collectively can create longer-term impact. C H A P T E R 1 Introduction

4 Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies Despite the growing body of academic research on the interactions between public investment, including in transit improvements, and residential displacement, there has been little system- atic practical guidance for transit agencies and their external partners to identify approaches and tools to coordinate transit investments and services with affordable housing (Chapple and Loukaitou-Sideris 2019). The organizational challenges are considerable since transportation is primarily organized on a regional basis, while housing decisions are most often made at the municipal or state levels. Efforts to coordinate existing transit services and affordable housing policies are disparate, local, and ad-hoc in nature. Yet a shared social goal for transit and afford- able housing is to improve economic opportunity for low-income households. 1.2 Report Organization The research synthesis is organized into five main chapters. Chapter 1 includes the description of the project background and the technical approach, and a glossary of key terms. Chapter 2 summarizes results from the project survey, noting overall trends shared by respondents and specific issues identified as requiring greater future coordination. Specific questions, responding agencies, and a snapshot of detailed survey responses are included in the appendices. Chapter 3 summarizes findings from the literature review that describe key federal require- ments influencing the coordination of affordable housing and transit. The literature review is divided into four components: (1) a basic introduction to the topic; (2) transit fare and service design issues; (3) planning coordination efforts; and (4) equitable transit-oriented development (ETOD). Individual survey responses relevant to each topic are interspersed as appropriate. Chapter 4 provides detailed case examples of five regions to further illustrate the myriad of ways that coordination is happening by transit agencies, local governments, regional and metro politan planning organizations, and housing and equity stakeholders as well as to illu- minate the challenges to coordination that exist across these players. The five regions represent a range of approaches, tools, and barriers. Each highlights a particular aspect of coordination, from the influence of state mandates in California, to suburban coordination efforts in Kansas City, to housing finance issues in Atlanta, to transit finance challenges in Boise, to cross-sector coordination in Chicago. Chapter 5 provides a summary of key findings and future research needs. Following the report’s conclusion and project references list, several appendices are included. 1.3 Technical Approach to Project Karner et al. (2016) describe transportation equity along four components: (1) participa- tion, (2) benefits, (3) environment and quality of life burdens, and (4) financial burdens and affordability. This framework informed the research approach. Specifically, the study team defined transit and affordable housing coordination across a spectrum of potential actions that transit agencies and housing partners could undertake that address each component. The project survey asked questions addressing each. The literature review and case examples examine these issues to identify burdens and benefits that low-income transit riders living in affordable housing face relative to other populations. Beyond the focus on transit agencies, the project team sought to identify ways that affordable housing stakeholders are considering and prioritizing transit access in their policies, projects, and programs. This report identifies a range of ways that coordination is occurring. It also identifies barriers and challenges that exist within siloed government agencies, between federal planning requirements, and across funding programs.

Introduction 5   Existing research identifies many transportation and access challenges faced by low-income households. This research synthesis project identifies several areas where future research and analysis is needed to enable transit agencies, planners, and other decision makers to more inten- tionally prioritize needs of low-income riders and engage on housing issues. A literature review was conducted between January and July 2021. Research focused primarily on published academic articles, federal reports, data tools, and guidance largely available online. In some cases, particularly related to COVID-19 impacts and the case examples, online articles are also included. A project survey was designed in January 2021 and administered between February 1 and March 19, 2021. Appendix A provides the full set of survey questions. The survey included 50 questions, organized into the following categories: (A) Basic Respondent Information. (B) Transit Service and Fare Policy Coordination with Affordable Housing. (C) Planning Coordination between Transit and Housing. (D) Coordination of Affordable Housing with Transit-Oriented Development. (E) Case Examples. The survey was sent to 75 transit agencies representing a mix of system sizes, modes, and geographies (see Appendix B for agencies targeted). The list includes the 50 largest transit pro- viders and numerous smaller systems identified through the literature review and outreach to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) and the Community Transportation Association of America. The survey was shared through social media and through direct cor- respondence with agencies. Fifty-one agencies responded, reflecting a 68% response rate. States and jurisdictions where transit agencies provided responses are shown in Figure 1 in Chapter 2. Informed by the survey results and literature review, the study team selected five regions to develop into case examples. Selected regions and included transit systems include the following: 1. Atlanta [Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA)]. 2. Boise [Valley Regional Transit (VRT)]. 3. Chicago [Regional Transportation Authority, Chicago Transit Authority (CTA), Metra, Pace]. 4. Kansas City [Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA), RideKC]. 5. San Francisco Bay Area [AC Transit, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority (SFMTA), Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)]. The case examples were developed between April and June 2021. These were informed by an analysis of transit agency survey results and relevant long-range plans and TOD policies; inter- views with transit agency, local planning, or housing agency staff, and other key stakeholders; analysis of relevant national census, housing, and transit data; and a targeted literature review that includes published research, government agency websites, and recent news articles. 1.4 Glossary of Terms Affordable fares: Transit fare policy that provides subsidies or alternative pricing to designated rider groups, such as low-income riders, seniors, people with disabilities, or youth. This may include zero- and fare-free transit. Affordable housing: Market-rate or subsidized housing units that cost less than 30% of a low- or moderate-income household’s income and provide residents with a healthy, safe, and stable place to live. For example, to a household earning $40,000 a year, affordable housing would cost no more than $12,000 a year (or $1,000 a month), including rent or mortgage payments as well as utilities, insurance, and other associated costs.

6 Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies Area median income (AMI): The midpoint of a region’s income distribution. Consolidated plan: A HUD-approved 3- to 5-year plan describing the jurisdiction’s community development priorities and multiyear goals based on an assessment of housing and commu- nity development needs, an analysis of housing and economic market conditions, and available resources. Equitable transit-oriented development (ETOD): A TOD approach with an equity lens, devel- opment that enables all people, regardless of income, race, ethnicity, age, gender, or ability, to experience the benefits of dense, mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented development near transit hubs. Equity: The relative fairness in the distribution of impacts (benefits and costs) across different population groups, particularly vulnerable or historically under-represented populations such as Black, Brown, Asian, Indigenous, and other people of color; those with physical or mental impairments, the elderly or youth, or marginalized genders. Fare capping: An approach to fare policy where an individual pays the full cost per ride but can avoid additional fare charges with a single pass once they incur the equivalent cost of the appropriate multi-day pass. First- or last-mile: The gap from the origin to public transit, often termed the first mile connec- tion; or the gap from public transit to the final destination, often termed the last mile connection. Fixed-service: A transportation system (e.g., buses, vans, or light rail) that operates on a pre- determined route according to a pre-determined schedule. Gentrification: The process whereby the character of a poor urban area is changed by wealthier people moving in, improving housing, and attracting new businesses, typically displacing current inhabitants in the process. Low- and moderate-income households: Low-income households are commonly defined as earning less than 80% of AMI as determined by HUD for each metropolitan region in the country. Moderate-income households earn between 80 and 120% of AMI. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC): A federal government tool (a 15-year tax credit) used to incentivize the acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing for low- and moderate-income tenants. Paratransit: A shared ride public service intended to serve as a “safety net” for individuals who, because of their disabilities, are unable to ride the Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant regional transit service fixed-route bus for some or all their travel. A specific diagnosis or use of mobility aid does not automatically result in paratransit eligibility. Public transit: Local bus, rapid bus, light rail, commuter rail, paratransit, shuttles, and other forms of transportation that are available to the public. Qualified allocation plan (QAP): A document that states, and a few local agencies, must develop in order to distribute federal LIHTCs, which can be awarded only to a building that fits the QAP’s priorities and criteria. Stakeholder: An individual or group that has an interest in any decision or activity of an organi- zation or cause. May also include different government agencies outside of the agency with responsibility for decision making. Transit corridor: A generally linear area that is served by continuous transit service. Transit-oriented development (TOD): Development within a ½ mile of fixed-transit or ¼ mile of high-frequency bus transit designed to maximize the amount of residential, business, and leisure space within walking distance of public transit service.

Introduction 7   Transportation Improvement Program (TIP): A document, federally mandated for all metro- politan planning organizations (MPOs), that lists all transportation projects in an MPO’s metro politan planning area that seek federal transportation funding within at least a 4-year horizon. Urban sprawl: The rapid expansion of the geographic boundaries of cities and towns, often characterized by low-density residential housing, single-use zoning, and increased reliance on the private automobiles for transportation. Very low-income households: Households commonly defined as earning less than 30% of AMI as determined by HUD for each metropolitan region in the country. These can include working poor and seniors living on fixed incomes. Zero fare or fare free: Public transport funded in full by means other than by collecting fares from passengers.