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.

8 This survey was a helpful outline of all the things we’re not doing to support affordable housing right now. While I advocate internally and externally, there are no local plans or policies that specifically call for locating affordable housing and transit together. – Survey Respondent 2.1 Survey Respondent Characteristics Figure 1 shows the geographic distribution of the 51 agencies that responded to the project survey. In several states and cities, more than one transit agency responded. Nine agencies responded from California, with almost every major metro area represented. Survey responses include large agencies such as Houston Metro, Seattle’s Sound Transit, and Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) as well as smaller systems operating in cities like Traverse City, Michigan; Pompano Beach, Florida; Greenville, South Carolina; and many mid-size cities like Akron, Ohio; Richmond, Virginia; and Eugene, Oregon. Northeastern systems, however, are not well reflected in survey responses. Almost 30% of those responding were transit agencies that operate 250 to 999 peak vehicles during maximum service, reflecting the greatest representation among survey responses. Overall responses reflect an even mix between system size, as shown in Figure 2. Bus service had the largest representation among the 51 survey responses (92%). Over 80% of those who responded also provide paratransit service, which is not surprising because services are mandatory for places that operate fixed-route service. Most smaller service transit agencies offer bus service. Twenty-six rail agencies, many also providing bus, bus rapid transit (BRT), commuter, and even ferry service, responded. Several commuter transit providers responded, including those serving suburban communities in Chicago, Orlando, South Florida, and Tampa. 2.2 Fare and Service Coordination Responses Discounted fares are offered by 41% of reporting agencies (see Table 1), not including those that indicated temporary free fare service in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Agencies not offering discounted fares include both large and smaller systems, though smaller systems (those with less than 100 vehicles) are more likely to not offer discounts. Responses varied across modal type. The types of discounted fares offered include reduced fare passes, monthly discounts, and fare capping. Agencies report working with other human services to help low-income individuals access discounted fares. The most common populations to receive discounted fares are youth, individuals with disabilities, veterans, and older adults, but not necessarily low-income riders. C H A P T E R 2 Survey Findings

Figure 1. States and cities represented by transit agencies’ survey responses. Figure 2. Relative size of transit agency systems represented by survey responses. Does your agency o r discounted fares for very low-income riders or those experiencing economic hardship? (N=51) Frequency Percent Yes 21 41% No 30 59% Total 51 100% Note: i c i fi a i a a ic a a a c ti i a a ic a a ci ti i a a a i c a i a ti i Table 1. Survey responses to whether agencies provide discounted fares.

10 Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies In defining low income for fare and service decisions, responses included using AMI, a per- cent of the federal poverty level, or individuals receiving government relief. Some agencies report using partner agency definitions. The federal poverty level is the most consistent defini- tion of affordable housing reported. For instance, reduced fare programs targeting households at or below 200% of the federal poverty income guidelines, based on household size. When asked if neighborhoods with high levels of affordable housing are prioritized when making transit services/decisions, responses are slightly split, as reflected in Table 2. Fifty-one per- cent of agencies confirmed these neighborhoods are prioritized, whereas 37% reported they are not and 12% indicated this is unknown. Figure 3 shows service frequency for neighborhoods with high levels of affordable housing. About a third of survey respondents indicate that most affordable housing neighborhoods are currently served by transit with 30-minute headways or less. Hourly transit service to affordable housing neighborhoods is the second most popular answer at 22%. Only one agency (AC Transit in Oakland, California) reports that all affordable housing neighborhoods are served with transit service that has 30-minute headways or less. Frequency Percent Yes 26 51% No 19 37% Unknown 6 12% Total 51 100% Does your agency prioritize serving neighborhoods with high levels of affordable housing when making transit service and route decisions? (N=51) Table 2. Survey responses to whether service is prioritized in low-income neighborhoods with high levels of affordable housing. Figure 3. Survey responses to frequency of service to low-income neighborhoods with high levels of affordable housing.

Survey Findings 11   2.3 Engagement with Affordable Housing Residents Connecting with those living in affordable housing to engage them on transportation issues can be important to ensure that disadvantaged job seekers and lower-income workers have their needs considered in transit planning, service, and fare policy. Transportation barriers create challenges for these workers in urban, suburban, and rural neighborhoods who may not have access to an automobile to reach job opportunities or other essential destinations. Half of agency responses reported that they inform and engage residents of affordable housing and public housing transit riders when fare policy or service changes are being considered (see Figure 4). Notable targeted outreach strategies included one agency who assembles a group of engaged residents called the “Equity Cabinet” to help shape a framework to update policies to be equity-centric. The group, while not specific to public housing, includes residents, providers and policymakers who advocate for low-income people and those in public housing. Another agency developed an ambitious communications strategy that includes targeted efforts to keep low- income residents informed as well as residents who are non-English speakers. Strategies shared in the survey among respondents include using multiple media, posting signs in the neighbor hood, posting signs on buses, conducting radio interviews, and advertising on social media. Five agencies CTA, AC Transit, BART, Birmingham Jefferson County Transit Authority, and TARC report using targeted hiring or recruitment of residents in public or affordable housing for employment opportunities. A notable example is CTA’s external workforce training and outreach programs. CTA has engaged community members in discussions on workforce development related to transit investment projects, most recently for the Red Line Extension Project. CTA also administers a Second Chance Program to hire people returning from the jus- tice system. Other respondents, such as BART and TARC, are working with community-based organizations to create job training opportunities within their agencies for low-income residents to gain skills and employment. The survey also asked about the range of ways that agencies may be engaging low-income riders in decision making that impacts planning, service, or fares. Forty-one percent report not intentionally engaging low-income riders in advisory roles. Survey responses reveal that of the agencies who prioritize low-income riders in advisory roles, they are represented through agency equity committees, specific positions on advisory or rider committees, or transit boards for low-income riders, or through other ways such as input via surveys, community meetings, or general outreach. Figure 4. Transit agency engagement and outreach to residents of affordable housing.

12 Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies 2.4 Engagement and Coordination with Housing Stakeholders Coordination with public housing authorities (PHAs) and other affordable housing organi- zations was reported by 80% of agencies, using a large distribution of strategies, as shown in Table 3. The reasons cited by transit agencies for coordinating with affordable housing advocates include • To address other issues of transportation coordination or concern, • To ensure transit access when making decisions about where to locate affordable housing projects, • To help consider and plan for increased service or mobility improvement discussions, • To provide transit passes to residents of affordable housing, and • To provide route and service information to residents of affordable housing. A majority of transit agencies (36) report partnering with affordable housing agencies and advocates. Many engage with local and regional agencies and non-profits that are active in con- versations on affordable housing and transit projects. For example, transit agency staff sit on committees and have regular coordination meetings with housing policy staff, local affordable housing funders, regional affordable housing advocates, and other transit agencies to align Types of Coordination Have or do public housing authorities or other affordable housing organizations coordinate(d) with your agency on the following? (Check all that apply) (N=51) Frequency Percent Public housing agencies do not coordinate with my agency 10 20% To address other issues of transportation coordination or concern 23 45% To ensure transit access when making decisions about where to locate affordable housing projects 21 41% To help consider and plan for increased service or mobility improvement discussions 28 55% To provide route and service information to residents of affordable housing 26 51% To provide transit passes to residents of affordable housing 22 43% Unknown 5 10% Have or do regional or city governments coordinate(d) with your agency to address transit needs for affordable housing residents? (Check all that apply) (N=51) Frequency Percent To ensure transit access when making decisions about where to locate affordable housing projects 28 55% To inform local and regional transportation plans and transit investments 38 75% To provide transit passes, or route and service information to residents of affordable housing 16 31% Unknown 7 14% Beyond fare or service policies, has your agency partnered or built a relationship with affordable housing agencies or advocates around transit? (N=51) Frequency Percent Yes 38 75% No 10 20% Unknown 3 6% Total 51 100% Table 3. Levels of coordination with housing stakeholders and other governmental partners.

Survey Findings 13   funding with affordable housing opportunities in TOD projects and to work toward a strategic approach to aligning transit and affordable housing investments. Partnerships are also used in land use planning efforts and grant funding applications that support TOD. Thirty-eight agencies report coordination with regional or city governments to inform local and regional transportation plans and transit investments. A range of ways this coordination is happening is shown in Figure 5. The survey also asked if local or regional planners report or track metrics on the combined costs of transportation and housing. Twenty-three respon- dents answered affirmatively. However, only 13 of those agencies confirm disaggregating data to report and track the cost burden specifically for low-income residents. A majority report that regional housing or growth plans call out the need to increase afford- able housing. Within these plans, respondents indicated that half include prioritizing affordable housing near transit. However, transit agencies are split in their responses as to whether trans- portation planners are prioritizing service to areas with higher levels of affordable housing in regional long-range transportation plans (LRTPs) (see Table 4). This split reflects a dichotomy in terms of how transportation and housing planners or providers understand the needs of their respective systems, and, most importantly, the needs of residents and workers who may rely on both affordable housing and more affordable transportation options, such as transit. Transit agencies report that most PHAs, local governments, and affordable housing devel- opers somewhat consider transit in making decisions about affordable housing. Whereas affordable housing non-profits and community development organizations consider transit in making decisions about affordable housing most of the time. Figure 5 shows results of the survey questions seeking to identify how well affordable housing stakeholders consider transit in their decision making. Overall, most do not feel these other players usually consider transit. Figure 5. Survey responses show a range of limited transit consideration by affordable housing stakeholders, where 4 = always, 3 = most of the time, 2 = somewhat, and 1 = not at all.

14 Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies Several different examples from among the responses on how transit agencies are partnering with affordable housing advocates are provided and summarized in Appendix C. These include the following: • Engagement as part of transit system redesign efforts to improve the network, including access to those neighborhoods and opportunities. • Communication and coordination with family resource centers as part of the outreach net- work to address issues for low income and at-risk communities, including new immigrants, refugees, and ethnic group communities. • Funding partnerships and opportunities to increase affordable and sustainable housing oppor- tunities for individuals and families. 2.5 Addressing Homelessness Twenty-eight transit agencies report that they are trying to address homelessness issues affecting their systems. The impacts of homelessness on transit systems shared in the survey responses include customers’ perceptions of safety, which can influence ridership; crime or targeting by the houseless population; increase in non-destination ridership; increase in operator assaults; increase in infrastructure damage; and increased rider complaints and security complaints. Do regional housing or growth plans for your community or metropolitan area include specific targets for increasing affordable housing? (N=50) Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Do your regional long-range transportation plan(s) include a prioritization for transit investments or service expansion to specifically serve areas with higher concentrations of affordable housing? (N=50) Frequency Percent Yes 27 54% No 9 18% Unknown 14 28% Total 50 100% Yes 22 50% No 9 20% Unknown 13 30% Total 44 100% Yes 17 34% No 18 36% Unknown 15 30% Total 50 100% If yes, do these plans prioritize or call out affordable housing near transit as a policy priority? (N=44) Table 4. Survey responses indicating degree of prioritization for transit and affordable housing in regional plans.

Survey Findings 15   Many respondents do not have specific programs in place to address riders who are homeless. Sixteen agencies report taking action to combat this issue. For instance, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) is working to develop on-board and stop- specific communication tools to provide information to riders on homeless issues and offer resources to support homeless riders, including maps to shelter, food, and medical resources. They hope to partner with the local city to develop a program for the identification of chronically homeless on the system and connect them to volunteers or social workers who can provide sup- port. Community advocates are encouraging the transit agency to deploy non-policing methods when intervening with homeless riders. Similarly, Denver’s RTD and Sacramento Regional Transit are among agencies working to place social service agency staff on transit vehicles and stations to connect those experiencing housing instability with services. BART is piloting a fully subsidized fare pass program for people with extremely low or zero incomes. TARC created a “White Flag” program to transport home- less populations to area shelters during extreme weather conditions. CTA has a joint program with Chicago’s Department of Human Services and Police Department to assist homeless persons who have been using trains and stations for shelter. Under the program, a response team of social service workers during late-night hours are available to provide immediate supportive services to homeless persons. 2.6 Equitable Transit-Oriented Development Of the transit agencies surveyed, 73% confirm engaging in TOD. Fourteen agencies have a TOD and/or joint development policy that specifically prioritizes affordable housing. Eleven additional agencies do not have a formal TOD policy but do encourage greater density, multi- family housing, and more compact residential housing development near transit. A focus on affordable housing and other equity issues within TOD is referred to in this research synthesis as ETOD. Table 5 provides a summary of survey results related to the ETOD questions asked. Does your agency engage in transit-oriented development? (N=51) Frequency Percent Yes 37 73% No 14 27% Unknown 0 0% Total 51 100% Does your agency have a TOD or joint development policy that addresses affordable housing? (N=37) Frequency Percent Yes, our agency TOD and/or joint development policy specifically prioritizes affordable housing 14 38% No, our agency TOD and/or joint development policy does not include specific prioritization for affordable housing but does encourage greater density, multi-family housing, and more compact residential housing development 11 30% Our agency does not have a TOD or joint development policy 10 27% Unknown 2 5% Total 37 100% Table 5. Survey responses to ETOD questions on affordable housing engagement. (continued on next page)

16 Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies Does your agency have specific production or preservation targets or goals for affordable housing (e.g. to create an additional 1,000 units of affordable housing on transit-adjacent properties over the next 10 years, or to preserve at least 50% of currently affordable housing units within a quarter-mile of light rail stations)? (N=36) Frequency Percent Yes 10 28% No 24 67% Unknown 2 6% Total 36 100% Does your agency consider impacts of gentrification or displacement of low-income, affordable housing residents as part of its TOD and/or joint development policy? (N=36) Frequency Percent Yes, we have specific policies or resolutions to address 4 11% Yes, but nothing is formally adopted 19 53% No, we do not 10 28% Unknown 3 8% Total 36 100% Does your agency give any prioritization for affordable housing in its process to dispose of surplus properties for redevelopment? (N=35) Frequency Percent Yes 16 46% No 15 43% Unknown 4 11% Total 35 100% Has your agency participated in joint development projects that included affordable housing? (N=36) Frequency Percent Yes 23 64% No 10 28% Unknown 3 8% Total 36 100% Do station area plans or TOD plans developed by your agency or other local jurisdictions include specific goals or regulatory measures to support or allow for affordable housing near transit? (N=35) Frequency Percent Yes 18 51% No 12 34% Unknown 5 14% Total 35 100% Table 5. (Continued).

Survey Findings 17   Transit agencies are split on prioritizing affordable housing in their processes to dispose of surplus properties for redevelopment. Only 10 transit agencies report specific affordable housing targets, which can be either a portfolio percentage or a hard number of units to build over a specified period. For example, “at least 35% of units being affordable for households earning at or below 60% of AMI,” or “1,400 units over the next 10 years.” These examples are discussed in further detail in the ETOD literature review. Twenty-three transit agencies report considering the impacts of gentrification or displace- ment of low-income residents as part of their TOD and/or joint development policy. However, 83% of those agencies do not have anything that is formally adopted. Only four survey respon- dents have specific policies or resolutions in place to address displacement. LA Metro’s Equitable Transit Oriented Communities Policy directs the agency to evaluate the regulatory environment when planning high-frequency service and prioritizes service invest- ments in areas that have inclusionary policies or anti-displacement measures in place. The Maryland Transit Administration works with the Purple Line Corridor Coalition to address preservation of affordable housing and small business retention along the new light rail cor- ridor connecting several Maryland suburban communities outside of Washington, D.C. The Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet) is pledging to deliver hundreds of affordable housing units to offset the gentrification effects of a proposed new light rail alignment. Others are working to create these types of policies. For instance, Sound Transit incorporates TOD criteria as a decision-making factor during alternatives development, alternatives selec- tion, design, and transit project delivery, including to “identify and pursue strategies that mini- mize displacement of existing businesses and individuals from properties impacted by Sound Transit.” BART is currently developing an anti-displacement strategy as part of implementing state legislative requirements. Overall, survey responses to the 50 questions show a wide spectrum of types and levels of coordination that are occurring. Several respondents note that they are in the early stages of coor- dination, and that these are complex issues that their agencies are trying to navigate. To quote one respondent, “Part of the difficulty in answering some of these questions is that we’re moving in this direction, but still in the research and idea/plan generation stages. We’re exploring low- income fare products, building more consistent and effective relationships with affordable housing organizations and other community-based organizations, and [deciding] whether to include affordable housing targets or other strategies in our Joint Development Policy.”