National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Chapter 2 - Survey Findings
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26542.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26542.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26542.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26542.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26542.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26542.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26542.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26542.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26542.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26542.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26542.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26542.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26542.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26542.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26542.
×
Page 32
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26542.
×
Page 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26542.
×
Page 34

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.

18 Literature Review We weave ourselves into the fabric of the community. If you go with our pillars of public transit, if you understand that this is about people, about making a difference in people’s lives, that’s what we are here to do. – Robbie Makinen, CEO of RideKC Transit (Holwick 2021) 3.1 Federal Coordination Context The genesis for considering the connection between transit and affordable housing stems from the long history of public transit serving many societal objectives, including to provide mobility options to disadvantaged populations. Indeed, the creation of a federal transit pro- gram in the 1960s stemmed from this nexus. As originally authorized through the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 and further amended in 1966, the Urban Mass Transit Administra- tion (UMTA) moved from being a demonstration project to a formalized division of the newly created U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) with federal require- ments for the coordination of planning between transit and housing (Smerk 1991; Cudahy 1995). In moving UMTA to the newly created U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) in 1968, changing its name to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and with the rescission of joint planning requirements in the 1980s, formal coordination between housing and transit at the federal level declined. Yet the societal value of transit in providing mobility to vulnerable individuals remains. The rise of the environmental justice (EJ) movement in the 1990s engendered greater focus on the equity implications of transit services and investments (Bullard and Johnson 1997). This includes increased focus on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that protects people from discrimination in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. In 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice (EJ) in Minority and Low-Income Populations,” with subsequent administrations building upon these EJ and Title VI foundations to push for greater racial and social equity in transportation policies and investments. Racial and socio-economic equity issues play out when transit agencies enact service changes that negatively impact low-income riders, people with disabilities, and communities of color. Transportation costs are high for many American households, but for low-income households they often create a disproportionate burden. American families spend, on average, 17.8% of their annual income on transportation costs, second only to housing costs. However, for extremely low-income households the percentage spent on transportation can be as high as 50% of their annual income. For those living in transit-rich locations, however, these costs can be as low as 9% (U.S. DOT 2018). C H A P T E R 3

Literature Review 19   Transit agencies and planners struggle to address the two often competing goals of pro- viding service to attract new discretionary riders while striving to serve current users better (Walker 2012; Manaugh and El-Geneidy 2013). Over the past decade, a growing number of transit agencies have undertaken network redesigns to better balance these competing goals and to clarify goals for frequency of service versus network coverage. These dynamics are even more important as transit agencies work to recover ridership lost during the COVID-19 pandemic. Across most systems, low-income and essential workers have been key riders, and generally rely more heavily on bus service. One analysis estimated that COVID-19 “essential workers” accounted for 36% of total U.S. transit commuters (Transit Center 2020). Many professional jobs have enabled teleworking, resulting in loss of ridership, particularly on rail and other corridors primarily serving wealthier, rush-hour commuters (Puentes 2020). In undertaking this work, transit agencies must consider important civil rights and equity considerations with trade-offs continually weighed between efficiency and equity, and between who benefits and who is burdened (Karner et al. 2016; Higashide 2019; Litman 2021). Explicit recognition of the impacts to low-income riders and areas with concentrated affordable housing from transit service decisions and fare policies are not adequately called out in the existing litera- ture. Guidance is lacking on ways to improve these linkages and the benefits to ridership from prioritizing high-quality transit service in low-income neighborhoods (Zhao and Gustafson 2020). Low-income workers face financial and temporal impacts from traveling long distances or dealing with multiple transit transfers to reach suburban jobs, many of which are simply inaccessible by transit. Employers often fail to consider these impacts in their hiring practices, or penalize workers who face transit reliability issues (Coren and Lowe 2020). 3.2 Aligning Affordable Housing and Transit The consolidated planning process, required by HUD for communities that receive HUD fund- ing, creates a potential framework for aligning affordable housing and transit (HUD n.d.b; Dawkins et al. 2010). Starting in the early 2000s, federal attention on the need to improve coordination of housing and transportation planning and programs emerged. Between 2005 and 2008, HUD and FTA entered into an interagency agreement to undertake joint research, followed by a published FTA-HUD action plan (GAO 2009). In 2009, Congres- sional appropriations for a federal Sustainable Communities grant program at HUD enabled transit agencies, local governments, metropolitan planning organizations, and local housing partners to address the interplay between transportation and housing costs, location, and access. At the same time, U.S. DOT was funded to provide Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER II) grants, including a set of planning grants in fiscal year 2010 to be coordinated with HUD’s Challenge Grant program (EPA et al. 2010; HUD 2010). Many of these grants directly supported local planning efforts focused on coordinating affordable housing and transit. TOD also gained increased attention by cities and transit agencies as a strategy to build more housing near transit and as a potential value capture tool to help fund new transit or affordable housing. In 2004, TCRP Report 102: Transit Oriented Development in the United States was published (Cervero et al. 2004). The following year, congressional language included in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) 2005 authorization bill directed the FTA to fund the Center for Transit Oriented Development to specifically undertake TOD research. An FTA pilot program for TOD planning was included in Section 20005(b) of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act in 2015, funding dozens of grants over the past 5 years in cities across the country, many with a focus on affordable housing.

20 Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies More recently, FTA has provided new funding opportunities through the 2021 Areas of Per- sistent Poverty program and the 2020 Helping Obtain Prosperity for Everyone program to specifically improve transit planning, public engagement, and service for those living in very low-income census tracts. A growing number of transit agencies have adopted TOD policies, with many including spe- cific commitments to affordable housing (Reed 2019). For instance, in 2020, BART revised its TOD policy to allow for a higher property discount rate from fair market value for projects that include affordable housing (BART 2020). LA Metro refers to its TOD program as Transit- Oriented Communities (TOCs) with a specific emphasis on affordable housing. Since 2016 the agency has distributed $9 million in low-interest rate loans for affordable housing on land adja- cent to Metro stations (Reed 2019). Through Title VI, environmental justice actions, fare policy and transit service decisions, and utilization of TOD approaches, transit agencies are finding a variety of tools that can advance equity goals. This can include greater coordination of the location of affordable housing with transit service in long-range planning and performance metrics, including the combined housing and transportation cost burdens. Recently, the COVID-19 pandemic elevated the critical linkages that public transit provides to ensuring low-income households have access to jobs and other key destinations (Mader 2021a, Transit Center 2021). The pandemic illustrated the importance of transit to enable essential workers to reach jobs, and for those without other mobility options to reach health clinics and hospitals, re-established the importance of transit. Over 450 transit agencies in cities and rural communities across the country partnered with public health partners in 2021 to provide free rides to vaccination sites in their communities (Mader 2021b). As transit agencies and cities recover from the pandemic, recentering concepts and approaches to transit equity are already emerging but more attention is needed. 3.3 Fare Policy and Service Planning Transit is a chance to operationalize equity. – Phil Washington, Former CEO of Los Angeles Metro, speaking at the Pritzker Forum on Global Cities (March 18, 2021) Public transportation plays an essential role in today’s economy. Accessible public transit is a significant asset in business recruitment, and enables all job seekers, regardless of mobility status, to seek regional job opportunities (Rosepace 2018). This is especially true for economi- cally dis advantaged residents who are more likely to rely on public transit (Adhikari et al. 2018). Fare assistance schemes and transit optimization networks can benefit low-income riders and employers. Examples of public transit program improvements for underserved communities include • Increased hours of service, • Increased transit service frequencies in neighborhoods with higher concentrations of low- income populations, • Flat fee or discounted fares aligned with ability to pay or providing fare-free transit, • Improved bicycle and pedestrian access to transit, and • Ride-hailing services to fill gaps and improve access to transit services. 3.3.a Affordable Fares Transit agencies may offer affordable fares to riders, but low-income riders may not always be able to take advantage of these. For instance, monthly transit passes offer a discounted fare

Literature Review 21   but require an upfront purchase price that may be financially out of reach for some, particularly if payment is due at the same time as rent (Harmony 2018; Lotshaw and Hovenkotter 2019). Low-wage workers are less likely to benefit from transit passes provided through employer transportation demand management programs, which tend to benefit higher-wage workers (Higashide 2019). Access to affordable transportation for low-income workers, older residents, and persons with disabilities promotes self-sustainability and allows spending on other household essentials that improve the quality of life (Criden 2008). Differing fare policies can make the transit system seem disorganized or confusing to navigate for riders and costly to administer for transit agen- cies. In response, some agencies are actively working to create fare programs that are simple and uniform (Fleisher 2017). In 2017, Sonoma County Transit, Santa Rosa City Bus, and Petaluma Transit, for example, coordinated a single trip fare during their fare box update (Metropolitan Transportation Commission 2020). Several transit agencies are using flat rate fares, regardless of distance or time of day, to address both issues and reduce barriers to riding transit (Lotshaw and Hovenkotter 2019). TriMet is one of the few transit agencies in America to introduce fare capping (Derby 2019; Selinger et al. 2019). This concept ensures riders can avoid additional fares with a single pass once they incur the equivalent cost of an unlimited transit pass (Lotshaw and Hovenkotter 2019). A past challenge faced in creating discounted fare programs was in designating target popula- tions (Mehndiratta et al. 2014). However, many cities and transit agencies have developed socio- economic indicators, such as household demographics and income to help define and identify low-income populations (Harmony 2018). Electronic fare systems, mainly the use of smart cards, make identifying targeted populations for specific policies easier (Mehndiratta et al. 2014). Over 50 agencies, including King County Metro, New York Metro, TriMet, Heritage Com- munity Transpiration, and Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, have designed afford- able fare programs that discount the price of transit to allow individuals the freedom to travel without fare obstacles (Newmark 2014; Saphores et al. 2020; Darling et al. 2021). King County Metro has created a Low-Income Fare Options Advisory Committee to ensure low-income populations are targeted (King County Metro 2017). Kansas City’s “Zero Fare Transit” program is described in the case example and is funded by a combination of public and private funds (Casale and Sanderson 2020). Partnerships can increase usage of reduced fare programs, and enable the pooling of resources between transit agencies or help reduce the administrative impacts of implementing a targeted low-income fare strategy (Harmony 2018; Patskanick and D’Ambrosia 2019). For example, a smart card could be designed to function across multiple service areas, as is being piloted in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transit agencies can also collaborate with social service and affordable housing organizations that may provide financial or administrative assistance. TriMet works directly with non-profit organizations to provide their Fare Assistance program, reducing the administration load for the agency (Harmony 2018). State funding can also be tapped to enable reduced fare programs. In Virginia, state law- makers included funding for a Transit Incentive Ridership Program to provide zero fare pilots in a number of cities across the Commonwealth (Virginia DRPT 2021). During the COVID-19 pandemic, many transit agencies nationwide provided zero fare transit service funded through limited federal emergency operating assistance (FTA 2021). Historically, federal transit funds cannot be used for operating assistance, creating a strong impetus for local agencies to generate revenues through transit fares. This federal policy can exacerbate inequities in transit service and fare policy.

22 Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies 3.3.b Transit Network Design Transit network design plays a critical role in the livelihoods of low-income individuals. Sub- standard access to employment is a large burden for low-income travelers. Recent decades have seen growth in low-wage employment opportunities locating in areas that lack transit service. At the same time, poverty rates are increasing in suburban communities (Kneebone 2017). Both create significant obstacles for low-income residents to use public transit to access employment opportunities and essential services distributed throughout the region. Given how essential transit service is for low-income households, it is notable that only half of the survey respon- dents indicated that their agency “prioritizes serving neighborhoods with high levels of affordable housing when making transit service and route decisions.” Survey respondents noted that there are different metrics that may be used to meet similar goals. For instance, one respondent noted, “The presence of affordable housing units is not a plan- ning requirement, but WMATA’s service guidelines do require that the combined transit network provide some level of service to 95% of the region’s Equity Emphasis Areas, as defined by the MPO. Service types and levels are also developed based on population and employment density tiers.” A growing number of transit agencies are undergoing transit network redesigns in hopes of finding greater system efficiencies that balance needs of increased access and improved system performance (Byala et al. 2021). Transit network redesign focuses on key trade-offs, like ridership versus coverage and the right balance between peak service and all-day service (Walker 2012; Byala et al. 2019). Some- times it can simply be a matter of reallocating existing resources to optimize transit service. In Houston, transit expansion was achieved as a result of removing overlapping routes, devia- tions, and duplication, and in some cases removing transit that serves a small number of people (Walker 2014). New mobility options, like micro mobility, mobility hubs, and shared mobility, are emerging as critical elements to also consider and include in defining and designing transit networks and broader mobility service. It is important to consider equity impacts when conducting public engagement as part of transit system network redesign efforts, and in evaluating the trade-offs (Higashide 2019). Transit is a public good. Some routes may need to be maintained if they provide critical mobility to low- income communities where a high percentage of residents lack other mobility options (Lownes et al. 2019). The recently redesigned Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC) transit network pro- vides a cautionary tale. The agency updated its transit network design in 2017 and chose a route model prioritizing higher frequency rather than higher coverage (Adhikari et al. 2018). This trade-off showed network-wide accessibility improvements, as well as an increased connection to major job centers. Yet an analysis of the redesign by VCU’s Center for Urban and Regional Analysis found that it led to a 22% decrease in the absolute number of residential dwelling units served within ¼ mile of transit stops, and a 3% decrease for dwelling units located within ½ mile (Adhikari et al. 2018). Approximately 10,000 households were required to walk longer distances or use other means of travel to access bus stops. In relation to transit stop connectivity, low- income neighborhoods were typically not served by high-connectivity nodes (Adhikari et al. 2018). Yet overall, GRTC continues to see transit ridership grow across the system and ridership impacts during COVID-19 were less severe than for many other transit systems. 3.3.c Future Research Needs There are numerous opportunities to improve coordination between transit agencies and other organizations in the provision of low-income fare programs and network design or service

Literature Review 23   decisions. Additional research can answer key questions and provide best practices. For example, what barriers exist that prevent some transit agencies from offering reduced-fare programs to low-income riders, and what strategies exist that can improve the administrative costs or other challenges to administering these programs? How effective are these programs at improving low-income residents’ access to jobs ? What types of partnerships with non-transit stakeholders such as affordable housing developers, social service or public health agencies, or community non-profit organizations are most effective for engaging low-income households and public housing residents in service design decisions and in accessing discounted fare programs? How can these organizations be funded with federal transportation dollars? Further explaining the relationship between accessibility, travel behavior, and affordability will provide cities addi- tional tools to address affordable housing needs in their communities. 3.4 Planning for Coordination We have partnered with many local agencies and governments to provide supportive housing and additional units targeted to 60% of AMI and below. The mechanisms are complex and require lots of addition work to develop the complex funding stacks and maintenance, operations and service agreements. Stable service funding remains a challenge. – Survey Respondent 3.4.a How Transportation Planners Are Coordinating on Affordable Housing Transit planners and researchers have long recognized the importance of coordinating trans- portation, transit, and land use planning (Pushkarev and Zupan 1977; Weiner 1987). This typically involves trying to increase densities and encouraging mixed land uses near higher-capacity transit services to help build ridership, reduce congestion, and influence community development. The incorporation of equity concerns, of which affordable housing is included, dates back at least to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Bullard and Johnson 1997; Sanchez et al. 2007). Federal requirements (Section 5310) for state departments of transportation (DOTs), MPOs, and transit agencies to coordinate public transit and human service transportation plans took effect in the 1990s with SAFETEA-LU. Coordinated Service Plans can be used to align affordable housing and transit service and regional transportation planning as they identify gaps, recognize ways to serve unmet needs, and prioritize transportation funding for vulnerable populations. Few regional planning agencies have explicit housing authorities. There are exceptions. As an example, the Metropolitan Council in Minnesota is enabled to develop a Housing Policy Plan for the region to provide guidance on regional housing issues. It also allocates a set of federal and state housing resources to localities. Similarly, MPOs in California oversee local compliance with state regional housing needs allocations (RHNAs) and are required by state law to develop long- range plans that align transportation and housing goals. These are more exceptions than rules. Federal transportation planning requirements administered and overseen by the Federal High- way Administration and the FTA require DOTs and MPOs to each develop LRTPs and short-term investment plans referred to as State Transportation Improvement Plans (STIPs) and metropolitan TIPS. Long-range plans cover a 20-year time horizon. The STIP and TIP focus on a 4-year time frame and must be consistent with the LRTP. Both must be fiscally constrained with funding sources identified and be aligned with coordinated transit and human service plans (Dawkins et al. 2010). Neither housing nor equity is a federal requirement for consideration in developing these plans. However, the 10 federal planning factors do not preclude consideration of affordable housing location or the needs of low-income riders. Transportation planners have the latitude to incorporate specific equity considerations into planning, which can facilitate better coordina- tion with state and local housing plans.

24 Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies As more metropolitan regions experience escalating housing costs and increased conges- tion, many MPOs are explicitly including housing issues in their LRTPs. A requirement of the 2010 HUD Sustainable Communities Regional Planning grants was conducting a regional fair housing and equity assessment (FHEA). The FHEA served as a trial run for the HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule issued in 2016 by the Obama Administration (Mattiuzzi 2017). This requirement catalyzed many MPOs to examine these issues. Case example interviews noted the role these grants played in elevating affordable housing and other equity concerns in their LRTPs and other regional plans. Additionally, several MPOs identify regional priority areas, sometimes called priority devel- opment areas or priority growth areas, in their LRTPs where future transportation investments and growth are targeted (Transportation for America 2014). Research is lacking on the preva- lence of this practice, and on how it impacts growth and the coordination of housing and trans- portation planning. Research on equity considerations in the transportation planning process is limited (Frick et al. 2015; Marcantonio et al. 2017; Karner et al. 2020). One recent report examining the inclusion of equity criteria by MPOs in short-term planning processes found that among the 40 largest agencies, just over half deployed at least one equity criterion for allocating transpor- tation funds through their TIP process (Krapp et al. 2021). Transportation proximity to com- munities of concern, typically defined as areas of concentrated poverty, is the most common equity metric used. Overall, definitions and weighting of equity criteria need more emphasis and clarity (Krapp et al. 2021). The concept of “regional equity” focuses on understanding unequal access to opportunity within regions, and housing is a specific policy element affecting equitable outcomes (Karner and Niemeier 2013; Marcantonio et al. 2017). Research by academics such as Sanchez (2008) and Karner (2014) identify important equity implications in thinking about the role of public Federal Transportation Planning Factors 1. Support the economic vitality . . . especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency; 2. Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users; 3. Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users; 4. Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight; 5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns; 6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight; 7. Promote efficient system management and operation; 8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system; 9. Improve the resiliency and reliability of the transportation system and reduce or mitigate stormwater impacts of surface transportation; and 10. Enhance travel and tourism. Source: 23 U.S. Code § 134.

Literature Review 25   transportation policies and planning in overcoming or reinforcing economic challenges for low- income individuals. A growing body of research is emerging on equity and accessibility mea- sures (Marcantonio and Karner 2016; Twaddell and Zgoda 2020; Cantilina et al. 2021), and on the equity implications of federal and regional transit decisions and investments (Lowe 2014; Lowe and Hall 2018). Transit service and coverage are typically better in central city neighborhoods than in sub- urban neighborhoods or rural communities. The exodus of jobs to the suburbs creates signifi- cant barriers especially for those living in subsidized housing, which is historically located in the urban core. Housing locations and transportation modes combine to make it more difficult for underserved households at a variety of income levels to reach broader job opportunities (Blumenberg and Ong 2001; Pendall et al. 2014; Coren and Lowe 2020; Smart and Klein 2020). In one study of Canadian cities, researchers found nearly 1 million low-income individuals living in urban areas with low transit accessibility (Allen and Farber 2019). In the United States, a 2011 analysis by the Brookings Institution found that only 30% of jobs are reachable within typical metropolitan areas by transit via a 90-minute commute. Further, job access differs con- siderably based on land use and transit service (Tomer et al. 2011). The lack of job access is especially pronounced for low-income households without good access to transit (Blumenberg and Pierce 2017). In its study of transit and affordable housing in the Houston Metro area, researchers found that only one out of three rental dwellings affordable to moderate income households is near high-quality, affordable transportation options such as sidewalks, bikeways, and frequent public transit (LINK Houston and Kinder Institute 2020). Several survey respondents noted the challenges of this dynamic and the ways agencies are attempting to respond. For instance, the Maryland Transit Administration reported “we work closely with large employers in our region whose workforces rely on transit service and adjust schedules to match shift times and increase service when possible. We also report on transit access and frequent transit access for low-income and minority communities.” Outside of the research community, governmental agencies are creating equity tools to better understand impacts of transportation policies and investments. Several of these include a specific focus on aligning transportation and affordable housing. For example, the Location Affordability Index was developed by HUD and U.S. DOT in 2015 to increase public access to data about transportation, housing, and land use (HUD n.d.b). It helps buyers or renters make informed choices about where to live by factoring transportation costs into these decisions. Similarly, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency developed a Smart Location Database that includes more than 90 attributes summarizing characteristics such as housing density, diversity of land use, neighborhood design, destination accessibility, transit service, employment, and demographics (EPA 2021). Research is lacking, however, on the utilization and effectiveness of these types of tools to influence investment decisions, service, and the coordination of housing and transit. Transportation and equity advocates are partnering with academics and data entrepreneurs to also provide new tools. For instance, LINK Houston and Rice University’s Kinder Institute for Urban Research created the Quality Affordable Transportation Index to better coordinate transit service, future mobility investments, and housing preservation and construction efforts (LINK Houston and Kinder Institute 2020). In Oakland, California, the advocacy organization Trans- Form joined with private data partner Remix to create the Remix Explore software tool to identify equity outcomes, including in the analysis of potential bus service changes (Jackson 2021). The numerous federally required transportation and housing plans that can provide a pathway for coordination are shown in Table 6. However, these have competing timelines and are devel- oped by a myriad of actors spread across state, regional, and local agencies, making coordination a challenge.

26 Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies 3.4.b How Affordable Housing Planners Are Coordinating with Public Transit Within the housing sector, there is no federal requirement for regional planning, or a housing equivalent to the MPO. Planning activities and requirements for affordable housing and transpor- tation remain voluntary and largely siloed between government agencies (Dawkins et al. 2010). Better coordination of affordable housing with areas that have high levels of transit access can enable low-income individuals’ greater economic opportunity (Sanchez et al. 2007; Smart and Klein 2020). Transportation provides access to opportunity and serves as a key component in addressing poverty, unemployment, and equal opportunity goals while ensuring access to education, health care, and other public services (Sanchez et al. 2007; Bullard 2013; Pendall et al. 2014; Grengs 2015). The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) allocate federal formula and grant funding directly to state housing agencies, eligible local jurisdictions, and public housing authorities. These entitlement communities are required as a condition of funding to develop plans that identify housing needs and strategies to address identified challenges, and that detail how federal HUD funds will be spent. The most common of these is the Consoli- dated Plan, which covers a 5-year period, and the annual Action Plans that detail how HUD funding will be used to meet needs identified in the Consolidated Plan. While it does not spe- cifically require the coordination of housing with transit, guidance given by HUD encourages Table 6. Federally required transportation and housing plans. Plan Lead to Develop Typical Time Horizon Requirement of Federal Funding Authority Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) State DOTs and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) 20 years U.S. DOT 49 USC 5304 (DOT) 49 USC 5303 (MPO) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) State DOTs and MPOs 4 years U.S. DOT 49 USC 5304 (DOT) 49 USC 5303 (MPO) Coordinated Public Transit - Human Services Plan State DOTs, MPOs, Transit Agencies, Human Service Providers 4-5 years (Must be included in the STIP/TIP) FTA 49 USC 5310 Consolidated Plan Entitlement Community / HUD Grant Recipient 5 years HUD 24 CFR Part 91, Subpart D Action Plan Entitlement Community / HUD Grant Recipient Annual HUD 24 CFR Part 91, Subpart D PHA Plan PHA 5 years HUD 42 USC 1437 Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) State-authorized tax credit allocating agencies (typically state housing finance agency) Annual IRS Sec 42 IRC

Literature Review 27   this linkage (Dawkins et al. 2010). In addition, two specific housing linkages for coordination with transit can be found in how jurisdictions approach fair housing and the allocation of low- income housing tax credits and housing choice vouchers (HCVs). The planning horizon and responsible parties to develop these plans seldom overlaps with the MPO long-range planning process. Further complicating matters, a city’s Consolidated Plan is often developed by its housing department or PHA, so coordination with the planning, transpor- tation, or public works departments may be limited. Silos persist and make coordination across bureaucracies challenging, especially when coordination involves issues not perceived as directly within the authority or purview of an agency (Pendall et al. 2013). Many rural communities are not included in consolidated planning efforts or HUD funding programs, creating even fewer venues for local coordination on housing issues or alignment with transportation in those regions. The Section 8 HCV program is the federal government’s major program for assisting very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market. The HCV program is administered by local PHAs who receive voucher allocations and program funding from HUD. Voucher holders can choose housing in any loca- tion where the landlord accepts vouchers, with the PHA determining the maximum amount of subsidy allowable with guidance provided by HUD (Garboden et al. 2018). There are various requirements for both the participating tenant and landlord, with the PHA providing oversight. In theory, HCVs enable greater access to opportunity for voucher holders. However, research finds that challenges exist that prevent many very low-income households from achieving this goal. These include access to both vehicles and public transit, willingness of private landlords to accept vouchers, and maximum rent limit constraints (Covington et al. 2011; Pendell et al. 2014; Dawkins et al. 2015; Garboden et al. 2018; Reina et al. 2019; Cossyleon et al. 2020). Fair Market Rents (FMRs) is a specific barrier related to HCVs that has a transit nexus. HUD created the Small Area Fair Market Rent (SAFMR) demonstration program to address the challenge that within metropolitan areas, those neighborhoods with higher access to oppor- tunity, which can include high-quality transit, often have a rental price premium. This makes it extremely difficult for voucher holders to access housing in private rental units within these higher-opportunity neighborhoods (Garboden et al. 2018). The SAFMR pilot was created to address this challenge and found mixed results in landlords utilizing the program and accepting vouchers even when rents were recalibrated (Garboden et al. 2018). Federal guidance and data tools are available from HUD to support local and regional plan- ning to implement the 1968 federal Fair Housing Act through the AFFH rule and to develop consolidated plans (HUD 2019). Examination of affordable housing opportunities located near transit and near job centers and other high opportunity areas was a focus of the 2015 Obama AFFH rule. Fair housing issues present both a challenge and an opportunity for aligning affordable housing with transit, given its focus on access to opportunity. This has included a push by HUD and local affordable housing advocates to locate more affordable housing in suburban locations where schools may be perceived as better, greater job opportunities exist, and health centers are increasingly located. However, the challenge, as one survey respondent noted, is that “The focus of locating affordable housing in our region seems to be moving to opportunity. This often means locating affordable housing in suburban areas of our region away from frequent transit services and often outside of the paratransit service area.” Another survey respondent commented, “Car culture is strong in our suburban service area and transit is significantly under-funded. Most (housing) agencies have preferred to give out gas cards or find low-income persons used cars rather than focus on developing good transit.” A growing body of research validates these concerns and highlights the challenges for low-income households to realize economic mobility in areas

28 Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies poorly served by transit (Pendall et al. 2014; Dawkins et al. 2015; Smart and Klein 2020). Despite this linkage, transportation has not been a strong focus of research or technical assistance and capacity building for those involved in the HCV program, or in studying FMRs. Alternately, some fair housing advocates argue for improving access to opportunity within areas that have concentrations of affordable housing, with new transit investments and increased service a common focus. Several survey respondents provided specific examples of where afford- able housing advocates were important partners advocating for increased transit funding, including passing local or regional transit ballot measures. A number noted that applying for grant funding is the primary way they partner with housing agencies, PHAs, and affordable housing non-profit organizations or developers. The federal LIHTCs, created by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (Section 42 IRC), is the most utilized tool for building affordable housing in the United States, allocating the equivalent of approximately $8 billion in annual budget authority to issue tax credits for the acquisition, reha- bilitation, or new construction of rental housing affordable to lower-income households (HUD n.d.c). State-authorized tax-credit-allocating agencies annually receive an allocation of 4% and 9% tax credits. They allocate these to projects based on selection criteria outlined in their QAP. Allocating agencies are typically state housing finance authorities. These allocating agencies are not often aligned with city housing departments, except in the cases of New York and Chicago, creating another player and layer in the efforts to coordinate affordable housing and transit within regions and localities. As of 2014, 27 states provided additional points in their QAP scoring criteria for projects located near transit (HUD n.d.c). Despite this, a 2015 analysis of LIHTC and transit coordina- tion found limited progress in delivering new affordable housing projects near transit, with only 15% of LIHTC-funded projects between 1994–2014 being “located within a ½ mile of transit station, and only 4% within a ¼ mile” (Zuk and Carlton 2015). Each of the case examples provides information on proximity to transit of LIHTC funded projects in the core city and metropolitan area, but the analysis does not include frequency of service. Explicit coordination within local and regional plans between transit and affordable housing remains sparse. There are a few notable exceptions, including at the federal level. Over the past 10 years, researchers are giving greater attention to the urban dynamics leading to increased gentrification in cities and resulting in the displacement of low-income households, and to the suburbanization of poverty (Covington et al. 2011; Kneebone and Berube 2014; Karner et al. 2016; Chapple and Loukaitou-Sideris 2019). Accessibility to high-capacity transit that provides frequent and reliable service to regional jobs and amenities is one of the features that facilitates this dynamic. A growing number of researchers have highlighted the combined dynamic of urban gentrification and suburbanization of poverty (Hulchanski 2006; Sanchez et al. 2007; Kneebone 2009), the racial inequalities exacerbated by these shifts (Grengs 2005; Howland 2020), and of the nexus between transit and affordable housing (Lownes et al. 2019). The trend of suburbanization creates additional challenges for low-income households given the absence of quality transit and longer distances to traverse for most goods and services (Goetz and Chapple 2010; Kissane and Clampet-Lundquist 2012). 3.5 Future Research Needs Throughout 2020, the racial disparities and economic inequities of transportation networks and broader social systems were brought to the forefront. Over the course of the project’s inves- tigation, increased attention has been called for in transportation and other institutions and systems where decades of systemic racism have created, reinforced, or hidden the disparities and

Literature Review 29   inequities created for people of color, and for predominately Black, Latinx, Asian, and Indig- enous communities (Goetz et al. 2020; Patterson 2020; Spieler 2020). Transportation access, costs, and its environmental and safety impacts affect low-income people, and especially low-income racial minorities, in nearly every aspect of their lives. Research from the transportation, housing, and public health fields consistently find, for instance, that Black populations have longer commutes both in time and distance (Gilbert 1998; Giuliano 2003), tend to have significantly lower access to automobiles (Giuliano 2003; Kawabata and Shen 2007; Karner et al. 2016), and are at a greater disadvantage in accessing jobs, goods, and services based on where they live (Grengs 2015; Allard 2017; Smart and Klein 2020). While outside the scope of this research synthesis, the linkage between housing, transportation, and racial segregation must be acknowledged and requires more research. Identified future research needs include strategies to better expand usage of housing vouchers in high-capacity transit neighborhoods and to examine the linkage between transit gentrifica- tion, vouchers, and expiring LIHTCs. Also conducting an assessment of the equity impacts of TIPs and LRTPs along with best practices for coordinating federally required housing and transportation plans at the regional or local scale would be helpful. The role of non-profits and philanthropy in facilitating coordination between housing and transportation and ways to fund these partnerships using federal resources would also be beneficial. As shared mobility services expand, multi-modal strategies that can improve mobility and access for low-income suburban and rural households should also be shared with housing stakeholders to help them better understand mobility options available for low-income residents. 3.6 Equitable Transit-Oriented Development: Consideration and Prioritization of Affordable Housing in TOD Programs If MARTA didn’t have a strong affordable housing goal as part of our joint development policy, I don’t think Morgan Stanley would have come to us to create a $100 million fund. – Jeffrey Parker, General Manager of MARTA, speaking at APTA Rail Conference (June 9, 2021) TOD is an urban planning approach that includes “a mix of commercial, residential, office and entertainment centered around or located near a transit station” (FTA 2019b). Different cities and agencies have created distinct TOD definitions that build off this general concept and may further define proximity to transit (typically within ¼ mile or ½ mile of the station), density levels, parking minimums or maximums, and other development criteria that support a walkable, mixed-use and transit lifestyle (Cervero et al. 2004; GAO 2014). TOD is one of the most common ways practitioners think about coordination of transit and housing, and the state of practice and academic literature on it has expanded. In the last two decades, a growing body of TOD research has been published, assessing its impacts on ridership and other transportation and climate benefits. This research provides case studies and best practices on different regional approaches being taken (Arrington and Cervero 2005; Renne 2009; Haughey and Sherriff 2010; Jacobson and Weinberger 2016; McGraw et al. 2021) and on ways that transit agencies are supporting TOD and value capture through their joint development programs (Raine et al. 2021). The intersections between TOD and affordable housing, whether as a tool to create new housing or as a gentrification factor leading to dis- placement of low-income households, are being increasingly studied (Rayle 2015; Bardaka and Hersey 2019; Chapple and Loukaitou-Sideris 2019; Zuk and Carlton 2015). Interest in TOD expands beyond the traditional housing and transportation sectors. For instance, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy has created a database of

30 Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies state and local policies that support low-income populations in TOD areas, and the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) has created a database and Livable Communities Index that also consider local and regional TOD policy, informed by research it conducted on state, regional, and local TOD policy adoption. AARP’s research found that half of all states (26), 82% of the studied regions, and all but four of the 70 identified localities had TOD-supportive policies in place (Lynott et al. 2017). TOD has become a focal point for housing policy discussions. Transit real estate assets are seen as potential development sites. Under FTA’s Joint Development Guidance, local transit agencies can use land that was purchased with FTA funds to support TODs through joint devel- opment partnerships or transit joint development. With FTA approval, local transit agencies can improve this property through incorporation of private investment, including commer- cial or residential development that may include affordable housing, if the transit agency can demonstrate that the development supports transit. The current Joint Development Guidance seeks to allow the maximum flexibility to transit agencies under the law when undertaking joint development purposes (FTA 2020). Transit agencies pursuing affordable housing projects through joint development point to its positive impact on transit ridership, including in their justification for discounting land prices. A sample of agencies with specific affordability goals is provided in Table 7, but it should be noted this is not an exhaustive list. Sound Transit has been a leader in this effort. Washington State Statute RCW 81.112.350 requires the agency to offer 80% of its surplus property that is suitable for housing to qualified entities to develop housing affordable to families who must reserve at least 80% of the units for people at 80% of AMI or less (known as the 80-80-80 rule). Sound Transit’s Equitable TOD Policy, adopted in 2018, includes consideration of the potential displacement impacts on existing businesses and individuals and a commitment to affordable housing. As of early 2021, the Agency is planning to surplus 10 properties for ETOD and under the 80-80-80 rule; 337 affordable housing units have already been built near transit and 963 are in the planning phase (Fesler 2021; Rivera 2020). Sound Transit is not the only transit agency to specifically set affordable housing targets. As noted in the survey summary, 14 agencies who responded have a TOD or joint development policy that addresses affordable housing to varying degrees. The San Francisco Bay Area and Atlanta case examples also include information on their transit agency commitments, which include specific affordable housing portfolio targets. 3.7 Utilizing Transit Assets to Increase Affordable Housing Production and Preservation ETOD is a process and a product centered on meeting the needs of existing businesses and residents, especially people of color and vulnerable populations, while enabling future growth near transit. A cornerstone of ETOD is the inclusion of affordable housing achieved through new production, preservation of existing stock, and tenant protection efforts. Sound Transit Los Angeles METRO Boston MBTA Denver RTD % Units Restricted 80% (min) 35% (goal) 20% 35% (goal) % AMI 80% 60% 100% Varies by state / local definition Project or Portfolio Per project Portfolio Per project Portfolio Table 7. Transit agency examples of specific affordable housing goals or targets.

Literature Review 31   Over the past decade housing prices, rents, and construction costs have increased exponen- tially, rising at rates faster than average household incomes. In many markets, even households at 120% AMI or higher are financially stretched (Aurand et al. 2020). Infill TOD often faces higher development costs than comparable greenfield projects related to land acquisition and clean-up, site preparation, regulatory compliance, and other construction and site preparation costs (Hersey and Spotts 2015). The time and complexity of ETOD projects often requires multiple financing sources and long-time horizons. Interviews with transit and affordable housing stakeholders conducted for this project found repeated anecdotes of successful ETOD projects that took 10 years or more to come to fruition. Indeed, numerous publications have noted the length of time required to deliver ETOD projects and the barriers they face, especially in financing for projects that provide deep affordability to extremely low-income households (Enterprise et al. 2010; GAO 2014; Hickey and Sturtevant 2015; Thaden and Perman 2015; Zuk and Carlton 2015). To meet these challenges, transit agencies are not only utilizing their surplus real estate to facilitate ETOD through joint development opportunities but also engaging in partnerships to develop new financing tools. Other public sector partners are also part of this work. Examples include the following: • In Atlanta, MARTA, frustrated by the slow pace of new construction and recognizing the accelerating loss of existing affordable housing, played a key role in facilitating the creation of an affordable housing preservation fund. The $100 million Greater Atlanta Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing (TOAH) Preservation Fund was announced in partnership with Morgan Stanley and National Equity Fund in January 2021. It provides acquisition funding to support multi-family housing projects that are at risk of conversion or expiring LIHTCs within a mile of MARTA stations, and to finance acquisition or repositioning of projects in targeted MARTA transit-oriented districts (Sharpe 2021). In June 2021, MARTA announced an additional $100 million TOD Fund created with Goldman Sachs to finance new affordable housing developments within a mile of MARTA heavy rail stations (MARTA 2021). The Atlanta case example has more details on ETOD funding tools being created in the region. • In Hartford, Connecticut, the state Responsible Growth Incentive account and the Transit- Oriented Development and Pre-Development account are leveraged with other public and private resources to provide a $15 million TOD Fund. The state Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD), along with the state housing finance authority and other agencies, helps administer various projects funded under this grant program (Connecticut DECD n.d.). • In 2010, Denver became the first region to develop a TOD Fund. In this case the City of Denver provided the initial $2.5 million in first-loss capital that was leveraged with other private and philanthropic resources to create an initial funding pool of $15 million. The fund serves as a line of credit to the Urban Land Conservancy, a land trust, and is managed by Enterprise Community Partners. ULC purchases and holds properties until sites are ready for development or refinancing, or until permanent financing is secured (Hersey and Spotts 2015). • In Los Angeles, Metro provided $9 million in 2017 to help seed the Metro Affordable Transit Connection Housing (MATCH) affordable housing fund, with additional funding provided by regional philanthropic foundations and three national community development financial institutions (CDFIs). The MATCH fund provides an estimated $75 million in loan capital- ization to support long-term affordable housing projects located within a ½ mile of high- frequency transit nodes. It funds new construction, predevelopment, and acquisition to preserve existing unsubsidized units. (MATCH 2017). • In San Francisco, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission became the first, and so far the only, MPO to invest in a regional TOD fund. The initial $10 million investment leveraged an additional $40 million in private and philanthropic capital to create the TOAH fund

32 Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies (Seifel Consulting and ICF International 2013). The fund and broader TOD financing sup- portive actions are described in the Bay Area case example. • In Seattle, Sound Transit is contributing $4 million per year for 5 years into a revolving loan fund to create affordable housing near its light rail stations. Sound Transit partnered with the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) to undertake an affordable needs assessment to inform how the revolving loan fund could best facilitate affordable housing opportunities and ETOD. Sound Transit is also partnering with Amazon to provide financing to build up to 1,200 new affordable housing units on Sound Transit surplus properties near light rail stations across the Puget Sound region. Amazon is committing $100 million in below-market funding to developers to help create and expedite development (Metro 2021). • In Washington, D.C., Amazon partnered with WMATA to create a $125 million TOD Fund with a goal of creating more than 1,000 new affordable housing units at Metro stations throughout the region (WMATA 2021). This and the Seattle investment are part of Amazon’s Housing Equity Fund, providing over $2 billion to preserve and create over 20,000 affordable homes through below-market loans and grants to housing partners in the Puget Sound, Washington D.C., and Nashville regions (Amazon 2021). This below-market capital will be available only to developers who have joint development agreements with Metro; and $25 million of the total is exclusively available for minority-led developers (WMATA 2021). 3.8 Anti-Displacement Policies and Considerations The potential for TOD to increase ridership is a frequent argument for transit agencies to foster economic development and housing along transit corridors (Reconnecting America 2007). Yet this dynamic can also lead to the displacement of existing low-income residents and small businesses who may already be transit users. Displacement not only changes the character of a community but also creates greater transportation challenges for low-income households that may be pushed out and lack access to an automobile. For transit agencies, it also contrib- utes to the declining ridership many systems experienced before the COVID-19 pandemic. In their studies on transit ridership declines, both Transit Center and APTA noted demographic change as a factor (APTA 2016; Transit Center 2019). “Among respondents who moved, those with household incomes of less than $75,000 were twice as likely to select ‘wanting cheaper housing’ as a reason for moving. The lowest-income respondents endured the greatest loss in transit quality after moving” (Transit Center 2019). In its 2009 study on affordable housing in TODs, the U.S. Government and Accountability Office (GAO) found that TOD generally increases nearby land and housing values, but the magnitude of the increase varies greatly depending upon several other characteristics that are discussed in more detail in its 2014 report on TOD (GAO 2009; GAO 2014). Other research around this same time noted the potential for the displacement of low-income and racially diverse populations but did not find conclusive data to confirm that new transit automatically leads to fundamental change in a neighborhood’s racial or economic composition (Pollack et al. 2010). Yet the potential to lose existing affordable housing was raised as a warning sign more than a decade ago. Findings from a 2010 report found that more than 250,000 privately owned, federally sub- sidized apartments existed within walking distance to quality transit in 20 metropolitan areas, with nearly two-thirds of these apartments covered by federal housing contracts set to expire by 2015 (Enterprise et al. 2010). Prevalent research of that time reinforced the idea that people who lived in TODs were childless couples, empty nesters, and Generation X (later replaced by Millennials). A focus was on attracting new residents rather than on preventing displacement of existing residents in transit-rich neighborhoods (Arrington and Cervero 2005; Reconnecting America 2007).

Literature Review 33   More recent research on gentrification, displacement, and TOD finds stronger linkages and evidence that early warnings to prioritize preservation of existing affordable units and to include affordable housing within new TOD projects were not sufficiently heeded (Haughey and Sherriff 2010; Zuk and Carlton 2015; Zuk et al. 2018; Chapple and Loukaitou-Sideris 2019; Padeiro et al. 2019). Local governments, affordable housing providers and advocates, regional planners, and transit agencies are beginning to better coordinate in some regions to address this dynamic. For instance, in 2016, voters in Los Angeles County passed a local ballot measure, Measure JJJ, that created inclusionary zoning near transit stations along the expanding Metro rail and BRT network (Bostic and Boarnet 2016). Researchers found that this policy created more affordable housing units than the County’s previous density bonus program, producing new units that serve extremely low-income households, which other programs, such as LIHTCs, fail to do (Zhu et al. 2021). In San Francisco, BART and other transit agencies in the region are also elevating anti- displacement interventions, as noted in survey responses: “BART’s draft 10-year work plan priori- tizes future sites based (in part) on whether jurisdictions have adopted rent control and just cause eviction policies. BART is currently developing an anti-displacement strategy which is a require- ment of AB 2923, state legislation passed in 2018.” In Portland, Oregon, “TriMet worked with jurisdictional partners to produce the Southwest Corridor Affordable Housing Memorandum of Understanding. Pledged to deliver roughly 750 affordable housing units to offset the gentrification effects of a proposed new light rail alignment.” Rising housing costs that displace low-income households is a contributing factor to home- lessness, a crisis that many cities and transit agencies are working to address. Several agencies reported in the project survey that they have created task forces, are partnering with homeless- ness service providers, and/or creating homelessness coordinators. Since March 2021, LA Metro has helped to house over 600 people and is exploring a temporary shelter program partnership and other options to better address problematic behaviors without utilizing armed security. In Denver, RTD’s Safety and Security Department has hired mental health professionals to help deal directly with homeless individuals at their facilities. In Philadelphia, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) provides a daytime homeless center in their underground Center City concourse called “Hub of Hope” with a non-profit partner, Project HOME (Housing, Opportunities for Employment, Medical Care, and Education). 3.9 Future Research Needs Given the breadth of emerging affordable housing policies, commitments, and financing tools that transit agencies are advancing, more research is needed to examine the efficacy of these programs; specifically, to examine the ability of affordable housing or ETOD to increase and stabilize transit ridership. This research can also detail the process by which agencies and their boards developed these policies. The TCRP’s 2021 Guide to Joint Development for Public Trans- portation Agencies includes some key findings and recommendations specifically related to affordable housing (Raine et al. 2021). Additional research on this topic would be useful to transit agencies as they make decisions regarding the use of surplus properties to recover agency revenues and ridership. One specific area of interest is how transit agencies are partnering with private funders, including CDFIs and banks to establish and administer ETOD funds. It is interesting to note that transit agencies themselves need not be funding partners but rather can play a catalyst role in their creation. Greater analysis can shed light on how such funds are capitalized, on their long-term sustainability, and on their potential for stabilizing transit-serviced neighborhoods and contributing to ridership.

34 Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies Future research is also needed to provide greater clarity around transit’s impact on different types of displacement, and on effective anti-displacement policies that transit agencies and MPOs can support given their extremely limited authorities on local land use and housing deci- sions. In scholarship on travel patterns and parking needs of TOD projects, greater research is needed to disaggregate information and focus on the specific needs and travel attitudes of afford- able housing residents and families. As more transit agencies consider potential redevelop ment of park-and-ride lots to support affordable housing, this type of information would be very useful for determining appropriate parking balance and pricing systems.

Next: Chapter 4 - Case Examples »
Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The nexus of transit with affordable housing, in some ways, is fundamental to transit’s very existence. Public transit provides a lower-cost mobility option for those who cannot or do not have a personal automobile to access regional destinations, including jobs, schools, and essential services.

The TRB Transit Cooperative Research Program's TCRP Synthesis 162: Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies looks at the current body of published works focused on the affordable housing and transit nexus. This information is supplemented by a national survey completed by 51 diverse transit agencies and five case examples that explore not only ways transit agencies are coordinating with affordable housing initiatives but also the ways regional planning agencies, local governments, and affordable housing partners are helping to bridge housing and transit to realize the full potential of each.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!