National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Chapter 3 - Literature Review
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." 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 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." 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 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." 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 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." 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 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." 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 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." 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 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." 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 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." 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 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." 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 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." 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 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." 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 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." 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 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." 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 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." 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 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." 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 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." 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 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." 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 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." 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 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." 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 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." 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 54
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." 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 55
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." 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 56
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." 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 57
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." 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 58
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." 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 59
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." 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 60
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." 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 61
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." 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 62
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." 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 63

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.

35   4.1 Overview of Case Example Characteristics The five selected case example regions reflect a variety of approaches to coordinating afford- able housing and transit, and the barriers that limit coordination. As shown in Table 8, each of the regions responded to the project survey. Together they offer innovative approaches to ETOD, network redesign, affordable fare policies, and planning coordination. All regions but Boise have received at least one FTA TOD pilot planning grant. Each of the regions, except Chicago, is experiencing growth of jobs and population while all of them are experiencing rising housing costs. Table 9 provides a demographic snapshot of the five regions and their central city to illustrate the variation across the five case examples, but also within each region. While the Bay Area has three major cities, information is only provided for San Francisco. Among the regions, Boise is the smallest, yet it has the fastest growth rates for popula- tion (10.8%) and jobs (11.9%). It is also the least racially diverse. Kansas City has the highest regional percentage (47%) of its population earning below 80% AMI and the second poorest city population, whereas the other regions are all somewhat similar. It is notable that for Chicago, Atlanta, and San Francisco, the central cities have considerably higher low-income populations than the larger metropolitan statistical area (MSA). The Chicago region has the highest percentage of population over 65 years (15.1%), whereas the greater Boise region has the youngest population, with almost 36% under the age of 18. Each case example includes a transit proximity analysis of affordable housing units funded with low-income housing tax credits to give some sense of general accessibility. Data is not readily available regarding frequency of service, so the full picture of access is limited. This analysis, shown in Table 10, found that at least half of units are located within a quarter mile of transit service. Chicago and San Francisco (SFO) have the highest percentages. The Atlanta region has the lowest percentage of transit-accessible units. Over one-third are located more than a mile from transit. 4.2 Cross-Cutting Regional Case Example Themes Several similarities exist across the five case examples, despite their unique geographies, varying housing markets, and different transit networks. These include: • Regional agencies – including transit providers and MPOs – are increasingly getting involved in affordable housing matters. C H A P T E R 4 Case Examples

36 Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies • Affordable housing concerns are not just a big city issue, nor limited to low-income households, though the cost burden and challenge of finding affordable housing and transit is especially pronounced for these populations. • Affordable housing production tools are not meeting the needs of very low-income house- holds, creating strains for transit systems that include rising homelessness and reduced ridership as these individuals are displaced from previously affordable neighborhoods served by transit. • Regional long-range plans either include or are being drafted to strengthen coordination and alignment between housing and transportation investments, but their implementation is limited. • Local attitudes toward transit and housing vary across communities and regions, but lack of adequate funding for both is creating challenges for providers and those who rely on each. • Suburban communities are seeing an increase in poverty and in some cases trying to expand affordable housing options. These communities are a challenge to serve efficiently with transit, leaving many low-income suburban households with limited mobility and higher transpor- tation costs. Employers also face worker accessibility constraints. • State governmental organizations, funding, and statutory requirements play an important role in facilitating or limiting coordination. Location Transit Agency Survey Respondent Key Regional Partners ETOD Network Redesign Affordable Fare Planning Coordination TOD Planning Grant/Fund Atlanta, Georgia Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority Atlanta Regional Commission, Atlanta Beltline, Invest Atlanta, Transformation Alliance ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Boise, Idaho Valley Regional Transit City of Boise, Ada District Highway Corridor, Boise Planning and Zoning Commission ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Chicago, Illinois Chicago Transit Authority, PACE Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, City of Chicago, Elevated Chicago ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Kansas City, Missouri Kansas City Area Transportation Authority Ride KC, Mid- America Regional Council, City of Kansas City, Johnson County ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ San Francisco Bay Area, California San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, Bay Area Rapid Transit Authority, AC Transit, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority City of San Jose, City of Oakland, San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Transit Commission, CalTrans ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Table 8. Overview of transit coordination among the five selected case example regions.

Case Examples 37   Population Demographics Atlanta - Sandy Springs - Alpharetta, GA MSA City of Atlanta Boise City - Nampa, ID MSA City of Boise Chicago - Naperville - Elgin, IL MSA City of Chicago Kansas City, MO - KS MSA City of Kansas City San Francisco - Oakland - Berkeley MSA City of San Francisco Population (2019) 6,114,361 498,073 749,257 228,959 2,693,976 2,181,139 602,574 4,731,803 Growth/ Decline (2015 - 2019) 7.5% 6.2% 10.8% 9.3% -1.0% 4.6% 5.9% 2.2% Age Structure Persons under 18 years 26.8% 17.0% 35.9% 24.9% 27.2% 26.9% 25.2% 22.4% Persons 65 and over 12.6% 12.0% 13.3% 13.0% 12.4% 13.8% 13.3% 14.4% Employment (2019) 2,906,883 256,891 357,682 119,121 1,370,000 1,136,136 374,609 2,671,063 Growth/ Decline 6.7% 1.2% 11.9% 9.0% 1.3% 1.7% 2.0% 2.6% Median Household Income $68,300 $65,345 $60,600 $66,800 $58,247 $66,600 $71,700 $106,000 Households at < 30% Area Median Income 12% 20% 12% 12% 22% 15% 18% 15% Households at 30 - <50% Area Median Income 11% 12% 11% 11% 14% 13% 13% 11% Households at 50 - <80% Area Median Income 17% 14% 19% 17% 16% 19% 13% Households at 80 - <100% Area Median Income 10% 8% 11% 11% 9% 11% 11% 9% Households at >100% Area Median Income 50% 46% 47% 49% 39% 42% 39% 52% Main Races White 48.6% 38.0% 88.0% 89.2% 33.3% 73.2% 58.9% 40.8% Black 33.3% 50.7% 1.0% 1.9% 29.0% 12.4% 25.8% 7.5% Asian 5.6% 4.0% 1.9% 2.8% 6.6% 2.8% 2.5% 25.3% Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 10.0% 5.1% 3.7% 9.0% 9,454,282 -1.0% 25.0% 15.1% 4,739,341 4.0% $71,800 14% 12% 16% 10% 48% 53.6% 16.6% 6.5% 21.2% 26.9% 8.4% 9.0% 20.5% 885,390 2.6% 15.0% 14.3% 827,224 4.6% $148,800 21% 10% 14% 8% 47% 41.3% 5.2% 34.3% 1.5% 19% Table 9. Comparative demographic trends across the case example regions and cities (Source: United States Census Bureau 2020).

38 Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies • Cross-sector collaboration is a key ingredient to successful coordination. Non-profit partners, philanthropic organizations, and academic institutions play important roles in advocating, planning, designing, and implementing solutions for improved alignment of housing, transit and equity goals, funding, and policy adoption. These organizations often provide the glue that sustains coordination. The following case example discussion provides place-specific examples of these themes and commonalities across approaches. While commonalities exist, each is written to focus on how one or two of these themes is particularly relevant for that region. For instance, in Chicago, cross-sector collaboration is resulting in deeper coordination between regional players and within the city to implement ETOD policies and address persistent racial inequalities that have created a highly segregated region. In Kansas City, suburban counties and workforce job access are emerging as an impetus for the transit agency and MPO to deepen its engagement in housing issues and mobility strategies that better connect low-income riders to job opportunities. In Atlanta, the backdrop of a housing affordability crisis has resulted in calls to action for increased preservation and construction of affordable housing, particularly at MARTA stations, where there is considerable development potential. New financing tools and regional policies are being crafted to leverage private sector part- nerships and improve coordination against the backdrop of racial inequality and low-density development. In Boise, the smallest of the case example regions but with the fastest growth rates, housing pressures are straining household budgets particularly for low-income residents. New alliances are forming to advocate for more transit and greater housing production. Finally, the Bay Area is experiencing some of the nation’s worst housing unaffordability, but a flurry of state legislation is providing funding and regulatory requirements to align housing and transit invest- ments, with a prioritization for transit agencies and MPOs to address the needs of low- and very low-income residents. 4.3 Atlanta Case Example The Atlanta metropolitan area consists of almost 8,700 square miles from the Alabama border to the west, north to the mountains, and comprises the bulk of central Georgia. Representing a diverse landscape in terms of geography, density, housing typologies, incomes, and ethnicities, the Atlanta region is home to more than 6 million people and has been growing rapidly for more than three decades (see Table 9). Conversely, the city of Atlanta’s growth, slow since 1990, has accelerated in the past decade, with just under 500,000 residents, according to the 2019 American Communities Survey. While the city is currently 50% Black, this share has shrunk over the past decades as white residents have led the recent increase in Atlanta’s population. Region Under ¼ mile ¼ to ½ mile ½ to 1 mile Over 1 mile Total Atlanta 58.5% 6.7% 1.6% 33.1% 100% Boise 56.8% 17.2% 8.2% 17.8% 100% Chicago 69.9% 10.0% 2.0% 18.1% 100% Kansas City 51.4% 17.6% 11.2% 19.8% 100% SFO Bay Area 78.2% 8.7% 4.0% 9.1% 100% Table 10. Proximity of low-income housing tax credit projects to transit in case example cities (Source: FTA 2019a; NLIHC 2021a).

Case Examples 39   While the Atlanta has seen significant strides in densifying its urban core, the region faces sig- nificant structural barriers to affordable housing and transit connectivity. The mid-20th century annexation of suburban communities in an effort to maintain white political power, exclusionary zoning and lending practices, and destructive highway and urban renewal projects that con- tained Black communities to areas west of the Interstate 75/85 corridor and south of Interstate 20 had lasting impacts (Stone 1989; Kruse 2007; Drake-Rodriguez 2021). Approximately 60% of all land – and 40% within a ½ mile of transit – in the city is zoned exclusively single-family. For years, minority neighborhoods, specifically Black neighborhoods, received little to no investment, making them ripe for speculative investment with the advent of incentives for develop- ment in the core (Atlanta Department of City Planning 2021). Ongoing “Not In My Back Yard” resistance to both expanded transit and increased density throughout the region has exacerbated issues of transit and affordable housing access. While Atlanta has heavy rail, light rail, and buses primarily provided by MARTA, the limited density outside the urban core makes providing rapid and reliable transit a challenge. MARTA in both its creation and in its modest 1996 Summer Olympic expansion was not designed to serve low- and moderate-income households, but focused on supporting business and commuter interests, both for downtown preservation and economic expansion (Stone 1989). While significant push-back from Black elected and community leaders in the early 1970s meant that the east-west (Blue) line opened 2 years before the north-south line (now the Red Line), the system was powered by the desire to create a “high-status” transportation system for the region’s white commuters, rather than to improve the transportation needs of low- and moderate-income Black Atlantans (Partnership for Southern Equity 2017). The region’s rapid growth and low density has decreased the supply of unsubsidized afford- able housing. The percentage of low- and moderate-income residents who are housing-cost- burdened, meaning they pay more than 30% of their incomes for housing costs, make up the bulk of Atlanta-area renters, with the highest concentration in the city of Atlanta with house- holds earning less than half of the AMI (Lance Bottoms 2019; HUD 2020). Almost half of all renters and a quarter of the City’s homeowners, regardless of income level, are housing cost burdened (see Table 11; data from Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy Data). Land costs make land acquisition and construction in transit-connected communities chal- lenging. Roughly a third of affordable units funded through the LIHTC are located more than a mile from a transit stop (see Figure 6). Further, while more than half of LIHTC units are located within a quarter mile of a transit stop, transit lines outside the urban core face infrequent head- ways that make their utility questionable for working families (FTA 2019a; NLIHC 2021a). Planning Coordination Despite the challenges to building improved access to transit for low- and moderate-income households, Atlanta agencies are being creative. There are three primary government or Owner Renter ≤30% >30% to ≤50% >50% Not available ≤30% >30% to ≤50% >50% Not available City of Atlanta 75% 13% 11% 1% 51% 22% 23% 4% Atlanta (MSA) 77% 13% 9% 1% 52% 23% 22% 2% Table 11. Cost-burdened households in Atlanta and broader MSA (Source: HUD 2020).

40 Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies quasi-governmental agencies tasked with long-range transportation planning and housing coordination: the Atlanta Department of City Planning and its Office of Housing and Com- munity Development; MARTA; and the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), which acts as the regional metropolitan planning organization. These groups coordinate with numerous state agencies, non-profit organizations, and for-profit companies to fund, build, and manage oppor- tunities to connect low- and moderate-income households with affordable housing and transit. For example, MARTA cooperates with several entities to boost its affordable housing TOD program. In January 2021, MARTA announced it led the creation of a $100 million private fund through Morgan Stanley Community Development Finance. The fund is managed by the National Equity Fund (a subsidiary of LISC) to support the preservation of affordable housing within a half mile of transit stations to provide gap funding for owners and landlords of afford- able units (Peters 2021). At the same time, the City of Atlanta authorized $50 million in bonds for affordable housing (City of Atlanta 2021). In 2020, Invest Atlanta, the city’s development authority, along with Enterprise Community Loan Fund and the Low-Income Investment Fund created a $15 million Transit-Oriented Development Fund focused on acquisition and pre- development of affordable housing near transit (Invest Atlanta n.d.). The ARC is also a strong partner in recent efforts to improve coordination of housing and transit. ARC, through its Livable Centers Initiative (LCI), funded local and station area plans that help guide the type of mixed uses MARTA incorporates into its TODs. Through its long-range planning and MPO efforts, ARC is engaging regional partners and localities to address long- standing racial segregation, affordable housing, and transit needs (Ghani and Lombard 2021). Aligning Transit to Better Serve Low-Income Riders ARC supports TOD and broader connections between transit and housing through its LCI program, a program that provides grants for planning and transportation projects that pro- mote the creation of more walkable communities with better access to jobs, services, and transit (ARC 2021a). ARC grant funding has helped fund MARTA parking and bus loop replacement costs with two TODs. ARC, MARTA, and the cities of Atlanta and Decatur funded the creation of the East Lake TOD Master Plan (Vallo and Frank 2021). In 2019, ARC released its updated Figure 6. Atlanta LIHTC units by distance to transit (Source: FTA 2019a; NLIHC 2021a).

Case Examples 41   transportation project evaluation framework for the region, which includes a range of metrics for projects, including traditional considerations about infrastructure and policy, as well as clear equity goals related to health impacts, community engagement, and access to transportation (ARC 2019). ARC helps to staff the Atlanta Transformation Alliance (TFA), a cross-sector collaborative originally formed to advance TOD efforts, but which has since evolved to address broader issues of racial equity, affordable housing, ETOD, and environmental justice (ARC 2021b). The com- mission continues to expand its approach to ETOD through planning grants to local juris- dictions in the region and the LRTP, which sets priorities for transportation funding across the region (ARC 2021a; ARC 2021c). The work of ARC through both the TFA and the LCI program has resulted in the growth in transportation coalitions, the shift of priorities at both MARTA and the City of Atlanta, and an infusion of resources to the region’s suburban communities to rethink transportation connectivity. Recent calls for projects to fund in the TIP, and criteria in its LCI solicitation, emphasize social equity and transit access, with each accounting for 15% of project scoring (ARC 2019). Atlanta has established creative transportation programs to fill last-mile transportation gaps and support individuals who are often marginalized. The Relay Bikeshare system offers a dis- counted monthly pass option for students and people who receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits ($5.00/month) (CycleHop, LLC n.d.). MARTA offers discounted tickets to senior citizens, disabled riders, Medicare recipients, children, K-12 students, and uni- versity students and staff (MARTA 2020). Additionally, Lyft partners with the City of Atlanta to provide subsidized $2 rides to farmer’s markets and grocery stores to residents living in food desert areas (Lyft 2019). The City has also developed a pilot program in partnership with the Department of Corrections to provide free ride-hailing services from detention centers to prop- erty centers, which otherwise are not transit accessible. Aligning Housing to Better Serve Transit Riders MARTA has more than 20,000 parking spaces at its station stops, including those in down- town locations, yet only 50% of these spaces are utilized by MARTA patrons (Green 2018). In 2010, the agency adopted TOD guidelines outlining transportation-demand management policies that reduce development costs and illustrate TOD’s benefits to community stakeholders (MARTA 2010). At the same time, MARTA’s board adopted implementation policies for these guidelines that address affordable housing and station area development, notably requiring all residential development in MARTA TODs to set aside 20% of the units as affordable to house- holds between 60% and 80% of AMI and for-sale units affordable to those earning 80–100% of AMI (Vallo 2021). The policy stated that this would be a baseline of affordable housing, and the agency would encourage developers to propose reserving more units or deeper affordability. With that foundation, the agency set a policy to encourage local governments to permit zoning relief for greater density (MARTA 2010). In 2018, the City of Atlanta implemented an inclusionary zoning ordinance meant to address the impacts of city investment in transit, greenspace, and housing in all rental developments greater than 10 units, specifically requiring affordable housing between 60% and 80% of AMI with an option to pay into a fund instead of proving on-site housing (Atlanta Department of City Planning 2020). In 2019, Mayor Lance Bottoms released her plan to create 20,000 afford- able units by 2026 through a combination of changes to zoning, the use of unused public land, new local funding, and the development of philanthropic funding (Lance Bottoms 2019). The mayor’s goals aligned with MARTA’s for rethinking unused parking for TOD. In November 2019, the MARTA Board approved the release of seven mixed-income housing TODs

42 Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies for stations MARTA owns in federal Opportunity Zones (Vallo and Frank 2021). The develop- ment potential includes the possibility of 900 affordable units for persons earning 80–120% of the median household income by zip code, which allowed MARTA to deliver the housing affordability desired by the communities in which its stations reside. Also in 2019, a developer broke ground on a mixed-use development that includes 208 multifamily apartments, 53 of which will be affordable at 80% AMI at the Edgewood-Candler Park MARTA Station. There are currently 267 affordable units completed or under construction near MARTA stations and more than 1,400 additional affordable units are in the negotiation or financing stage, including units for households at 50–60% AMI (Vallo 2021). The region continues to face challenges in connecting transit to housing need. One challenge is addressing “deep affordability” of housing with existing tools for families earning less than 50% AMI, which equates to less than $35,000. As shown in Table 9, almost one-third of Atlanta’s population and a quarter of the metro’s households fall into this income category. While this group of households is the most cost-burdened, there are few funding tools or subsidies available to developers to build housing for households at 50% AMI. While the region has 97 affordable and available units for every 100 households between 60% and 80% of AMI who need them, there are only 51 and 29 for every 100 households below 50% and 30% AMI respectively (NLIHC 2021b). Second, the region faces ongoing resistance to both increases in density and transit expansion into the suburban communities. In 2019, suburban Gwinnett County rejected an expansion of rail into the county for the third time, which parallels rejections from voters in Cobb County throughout the past 30 years (Estep and Coyne 2020). Gwinnett also rejected a referendum for transit in 2020. Conclusion Atlanta’s history of deep racial inequality can be seen in its development patterns and transit network. Both affordable housing and transit funding have not been adequate to meet the needs of low-income communities. Cross-sector partners are taking steps to repair and find other critical pathways to improve both and coordinate affordable housing and transit. This is a slow and politically challenging process. While MARTA’s Board approved a TOD policy in 2010, it has taken over a decade to see development happen. In that time, it has gone from one successful ETOD project with 28 afford- able units to 18 projects currently in development, of which 14 include affordable housing (Vallo and Frank 2021). Given the slow pace of construction and permitting for new TOD projects, coupled with the current need for affordable housing, MARTA has developed parallel partner- ships to fund preservation of existing affordable units. The intertwined and circular challenges of increasing density requiring better transit service and the lack of incentives for housing development and transit provision may stymie mean- ingful change. If there is limited density, the provision of transit is difficult to maintain politi- cally. Yet, resistance to increases in zoning in Atlanta’s single-family neighborhoods is politically powerful. As a result, incentives such as reduced parking requirements that might allow devel- opers to reduce costs per apartment are hollow if transit cannot support the connections for the households living in the buildings, or if transit service is not sufficient for households to access regional opportunities without a car. Developers need parking in their projects to remain competitive, access financing, and ensure they receive a return on their investment, in a market where single-occupant vehicle trips are how the vast majority of the citizenry travels. Despite these challenges, Atlanta is starting to move the needle and put in place the policy and planning steps needed to make critical changes. Furthermore, agencies across the region are taking stock of existing assets and asking how best to make use of them in the moment.

Case Examples 43   4.4 Boise Case Example Despite having the smallest population of all the case examples, the Boise region is experi- encing the fastest population and employment growth. In the years between 2015 and 2019, the city grew by 9% and the region by almost 11% (see Table 9). In 2020 alone, the region grew by 1.79%, creating housing and transportation challenges for regional planners and for households across a range of income levels looking for affordable housing. During 2020–2021, rents jumped more in the region than anywhere else in the country, according to market research (Salviatti et al. 2021). In stark contrast to the other regional case examples, Boise does not have a robust transit network. State funding support for transit is extremely limited. Continued growth pressures are generating stronger public support for new transit investments. A recent survey conducted by the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS) revealed strong public support for a high-capacity transit system. Yet Idaho is one of two states without dedicated funding for transit, which in turn presents a challenge to providing the system that the com- munity needs and wants. Introduced in 1999, VRT provides bus service primarily to the central city as well as para- transit and community transit services (Valley Regional Transit, n.d.). Service is contracted to ValleyRide, which operates and manages the bus system that functions within the Boise city limits and the greater Treasure Valley, which includes Ada and Canyon Counties, with less than 100 vehicles during maximum service. Surrounding neighborhoods are home to workforce housing and older residents who benefit from VRT’s last-mile services. Several services and partnerships have been created specifically to support low-income riders. The conversation of affordable housing is beginning to spread through the community as the lack of housing that is affordable to moderate-income families is become a growing concern. For most residents in the region, public transportation is not a viable option due to limited service and the degree of urban sprawl across the Boise MSA (Stoll, Miller, and Luft 2021). Given the limitations of the current transit network, affordable housing providers seek to coordinate projects near activity centers. For the population, housing prices are a greater concern than transportation. In 2020, the median single-family residential home sale price was $392,133, a 13.6% price increase from the previous year. There is an estimated 10,000-unit housing shortage in Boise and a 5,000-unit shortage in the larger region (Gamboa 2021). The City of Boise is considering creating an infor- mational dashboard, similar to that developed in other Idaho communities, to illustrate housing trends such as available units, average rents, and home values, including changes over time (Dashboard, n.d.). Currently, over half of all renters in the city and in the region are paying more than 30% of their annual household income on housing. As shown in Table 12 (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy Data) shows that over three-quarters of owners are cost burdened, whether located in the city or within the MSA. Owner Renter ≤30% >30% to ≤50% >50% Not available ≤30% >30% to ≤50% >50% Not available City of Boise 80% 11% 7% 1% 53% 21% 23% 4% Boise (MSA) 78% 13% 7% 2% 54% 22% 20% 5% Table 12. Housing-cost-burdened households in Boise and the broader MSA (Source: HUD 2020).

44 Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies Planning Coordination VRT and the City of Boise have established a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to conduct an annual public hearing centered around big picture system issues. VRT’s Valley Connect 2.0 6-year service plan has multiple new network alternatives, some revenue-neutral and one that would require $30 million annually in new revenues (Transit Center 2018). The design principles underpinning the work are to serve areas of strong demand with frequent service, to have strong anchors on both ends of routes, to be as direct and simple as possible, and to have even distribution of ridership throughout the day. VRT hopes the planning effort will stimulate public discussion of transit’s role in the region and reverse declining ridership and public support (Clegg 2021). Municipalities that wish to see improved transit have played a key role in pushing VRT to be more responsive to changing ridership/development patterns and municipal planning efforts. COMPASS is a coalition of local governments planning for the future of the Treasure Valley. The association is a voluntary, member-based organization that serves as the regional MPO for a two-county area in southwest Idaho. As such, COMPASS is responsible for transporta- tion planning and distribution of federal transportation funds for designated urban areas within the two counties. The organization created a LRTP, Communities in Motion, first adopted in 2014, which includes goals for providing “first and last mile” bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure to ensure individuals can complete their trip when using public transportation (COMPASS 2014). Similarly, the City of Boise developed a Transportation Action Plan (TAP) that identifies mobility choices for walking, biking, driving, and taking transit. To realize this vision, the TAP identifies a set of actions or “moves” that describe strategic objectives and provide a framework for prioritizing transportation projects within the City of Boise. The plan recognizes that all citi- zens deserve a transportation system that allows them to reach places they want to go, including the 30% of Boise residents who do not have a driver’s license (City of Boise et al. 2016). This emphasis requires planners to think about the mobility needs of people who cannot drive because they are too young, too old, or because they cannot afford it. Boise has made many attempts at regional plans but lacks local implementation. The transit agency has updated its 6-year plan to include metrics and cost measures, including housing, to build the case for more transit investment. The lack of dedicated transit funding precludes transit projects being included in the LRTP. COMPASS completed several rounds of surveys when gauging residents’ opinions on a possible future transit system in the Treasure Valley to help inform the regional LRTP update (COMPASS 2021b). The surveys demonstrated strong support for a public transportation system, with a record 11,700 responses. Survey results from 2019 and 2020 also revealed affordable housing as an important issue, and found broad general support for rail investment. The long-range plan is set to be updated by December 2022. COMPASS is expanding its advisory groups to include housing representatives to inform the Communities in Motion 2040 plan, harnessing connections with United Way and others to help ensure all populations in the valley have opportunities to be heard through COMPASS surveys and other public involve- ment processes (Stoll, Miller, and Luft 2021). Additionally, a development review protocol is used to review proposed developments in context of COMPASS’s Communities in Motion goals (COMPASS 2021a). COMPASS staff also track regional housing and transportation metrics. Over the past decade, COMPASS has advocated for more multi-family housing to be produced; however, affordable rents are not being considered.

Case Examples 45   Aligning Transit to Better Serve Low-Income Riders VRT is responsible for the management of a variety of transportation solutions, including public bus transit, specialized van services, paratransit, and park and ride. VRT works with other organizations and government agencies to create options that are accessible, affordable, and consistent for residents. Their multitude of services include City Go, a commuting membership program designed to offer incentives and perks for smarter travel in and out of downtown Boise, along with The Rides2Wellness Program, a free transportation service for patients of St. Luke’s, Saint Alphonsus, and designated clinics and Safe Routes to School, a program designed to encourage students to walk and bike to school to promote a healthy lifestyle, reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality, and enhance quality of life in communities (Valley Regional Transit 2020). For low- income individuals looking to use public transit for job access, The Village Van Program pro- vides job access services for low-income and refugee job access. Additionally, VRT Late Night offers transportation assistance for low-income job access. In partnership with Lyft, VRT offers $3 Lyft rides to and from work for qualified riders (Valley Regional Transit 2020). This program for low-income workers operates during the hours VRT buses are not running. VRT began reviewing their convoluted fare structure 3 years ago with an aim to simplify the system and be more transparent. Some board representatives recognized that while many recom- mendations said fares were not high enough, many riders are low-income. This led to the devel- opment of an equitable fare proposal prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (Clegg 2021). VRT reduced transit fares during COVID-19 and are reviewing the use of park and ride lots as a transportation demand management (TDM) strategy for project prioritization. VRT is reviewing park and ride lots to determine how to better incorporate TDM into project prioriti- zation. This was identified in the last certification review as something for the agency to improve upon. State legislature will not allow for a local option tax to fund transit, therefore, limited options in terms of fare policy and transit are available. A particular challenge to note is the fact that the City of Boise does not own its own roadways, but instead they are owned and managed by the Ada County Highway District. To develop a BRT system on the State Street Corridor there is an MOU between the State Street partners that requires the Ada County Highway District to do roadway work, VRT to be responsible for transit design and funding with the City Boise, and Boise to be responsible for design standards and land use/zoning standards for increased housing along the corridor. To help resolve any future questions, the City of Boise has created a form-based guide to aid actions. An MOU has been both helpful and challenging, as some agencies interpret it in broader terms and some narrow (Head 2017). Energize Our Neighborhoods is a community collaboration to make all Boise neighborhoods unique and desirable by aligning resources to improve livability and make measurable change. This includes working to simplify connections to city programs and services and helping neighbor- hoods build capacity through workshops, training, and a toolkit of neighborhood resources (City of Boise 2021). Aligning Housing to Better Serve Transit Riders In 2020, Boise’s Planning and Zoning Commission held the first public hearing on a proposed Housing Bonus Ordinance. This new program proposes incentivizing developers building in certain zones to designate a small percentage of rental units in their projects for affordable

46 Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies housing or build along public transit corridors by giving added bonuses, like a parking reduc- tion, a public approval process without a public hearing on projects less than 50 units, and allowing taller buildings (APA 2017). Over half (56.8%) of Boise residents living in LIHTC-funded housing have relatively good access to public transportation based on proximity (see Figure 7). Yet over 43% of units are more than a quarter mile from transit. Considering the growing urban sprawl and housing prices, these low-income residents face large hurdles to using public transportation and may benefit from last-mile transit services. The City of Boise coordinates with agencies to address transit needs for affordable housing residents such as providing transit passes or route and service information to residents of afford- able housing, informing local and regional transportation plans and transit investments, and ensuring transit access when making decisions about where to locate affordable housing proj- ects. They have partnered with local agencies and governments to provide supportive housing first and additional units targeted to 60% of AMI and below. They have a goal of over 350 units of new affordable housing per year, and each development must show how its location provides for transit access. Boise is targeting two locations on State Street, one of the most widely traveled east-west routes in the Treasure Valley, for affordable housing (Shallat et al. 2011). Consultants hired by the city are exploring key sites where they could work with developers or the Boise City/Ada County Housing Authority to build affordable housing and help catalyze development along the State Street corridor. Together, the City of Boise, VRT, the Ada County Highway District, and other partners have since decided to widen the street to seven lanes, and design it for faster bus transit on the outer lanes (Clegg 2021). Developing new units is a huge lift in the City of Boise. For many years, the City of Boise was the only individual recipient of federal Community Development Block Grant funding in Idaho; however, this source of federal funding has been declining over the past decades. There is state legislation for creating a housing trust fund, but no funding has ever been appropriated to the fund. Non-profit partners and intermediaries play an important role in supplementing affordable housing resources and strategies. For instance, the Treasure Valley Community Land Trust, run by local non-profit LEAP Housing Solutions, aids in purchasing land (Carmel 2021). Figure 7. Boise LIHTC units by distance to transit (Source: FTA 2019a; NLIHC 2021a).

Case Examples 47   Additionally, Neighborworks, a national organization that creates opportunities for people to live in affordable homes, is also actively involved through its local chapter in supporting the land trust and other affordable housing efforts. For the developer, the margins are very thin; thus, cities must leverage assets or provide subsidies to enable projects to pencil out. While transit access does not have the price premium in Boise as seen in other markets, it does provide essential service to many low-income residents living along transit corridors. Conclusion Public transit is limited in Boise, and housing affordability challenges are increasing. Of the transit that is provided, several options are offered to ensure low-income and disabled indi- viduals have access and that fares are affordable. Coordination between affordable housing and transit providers and advocates is in its beginning stages. Many plans have outlined on paper promising strategies and mechanisms, but implementation is slow, complex, and requires a lot of additional work to develop the complex funding stacks and transit funding to expand afford- able housing and transit transportation in this region. Funding challenges are daunting and real, but partnerships with non-profit partners can pro- vide important new resources and capacity. Bureaucratic barriers often impede on the prog- ress that occurs. Transportation does not have dedicated funding streams, nor has it seen large amounts of grant money for years. Therefore, creative processes, such as the development of land trusts and neighborhood collaborations to improve liability measures, must be put in place. 4.5 Chicago Case Example The greater Chicago metropolitan area includes 284 municipalities and is home to almost 9.5 million residents. In contrast to the other case examples, it lost population between 2015 and 2019. The region has a strong transit network consisting of fixed guideway and local bus service provided by the CTA, suburban bus service primarily provided by Pace, and Metra commuter rail. The Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) coordinates the regional transit system, allocating state and federal funds to agencies operating within the six counties of Northeastern Illinois. A variety of efforts are underway across a range of public and non-profit organizations working in the greater Chicago area to coordinate transit and affordable housing more intentionally. Like many other regions, Chicago transit providers are also engaged in efforts to better understand ridership trends and demographics, including those specific to the COVID-19 pandemic, when a large share of riders stopped using transit, and commuter-serving systems have been slow to recover (RTA 2021). Patterns of discrimination in housing and development have left a region that is highly sorted by race and income. As shown in Table 9, median household incomes in the city of Chicago are almost 20% less than for the MSA as a whole. Greater racial population diversity and lower- income households are located in the city than in the extended region. In 2013, Chicago began to formally encourage TOD by adopting a TOD ordinance that was amended in 2015 and again in 2019. The recent amendment adds key bus corridors and strengthens the city’s commitment to equitable development. In June 2021, the city finalized its ETOD policy plan, which outlines a comprehensive set of actions that city agencies and other partners such as CTA will implement over the next several years (City of Chicago 2021a). The CTA is one of the nation’s oldest rail transit systems. It has significant maintenance needs and like other transit providers is experiencing declining ridership and revenues that predated

48 Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies the COVID-19 pandemic (Morell and Puente 2020). In 2019, CTA initiated a detailed review of its bus service and routes with a goal to identify local design issues and network improve- ments to support ridership, but also racial and social equity goals. A limited number of reduced fare programs exist across the different transit providers, which RTA coordinates, primarily for lower-income seniors and people with disabilities (RTA n.d.). Over the last 5 years, several TOD planning efforts have been funded by the FTA’s TOD Pilot Planning program and other philanthropic resources. The CTA is an active partner in these and works with local and regional agencies and non-profits that contribute to the conversation on affordable housing and transit projects, such as the City of Chicago Department of Planning and Development (DPD), Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), Chicago Depart- ment of Transportation, Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC), Preservation of Affordable Housing, and Elevated Chicago. CMAP, the regional planning agency and MPO, and RTA each offer local technical assistance grant programs that provide planning assistance to communities. MPC, a non-profit regional planning organization, has a long history of engaging on housing and transportation issues, including sponsoring a variety of TOD and community outreach programs. Elevated Chicago is a cross-sector collaborative formed in 2017 and funded by the national Strong, Prosperous, and Resilient Communities Challenge to specifically support affordable housing and transit connec- tions and broader issues of equity and economic opportunity around several CTA stations that serve predominately low-income communities of color in the south and west sides of Chicago. Planning Coordination CMAP is the primary regional planning authority and MPO. Its ON TO 2050 regional long- range plan includes a strong focus on land use policies aligned with transportation goals to counter recent population loss and decades of urban sprawl, and growing transportation chal- lenges. This includes an emphasis on planning for a range of housing options and promoting housing near transit. For over a decade, CMAP has supported several different planning activ- ities to advance these goals (CMAP n.d.b). Together with the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus, CMAP has assisted more than 30 com- munities with assessing local housing supply and demand through the Homes for a Changing Region program (CMAP n.d.a). Most recently, CMAP and its partners created a toolkit that local governments can use to perform their own analysis. The agency has a 20-member housing and land use committee that meets bi-monthly to guide its work and provide housing exper- tise and input into its decisions. CMAP helps to staff the Regional Housing Initiative, which pools project-based vouchers from PHAs and makes them broadly available to developments region-wide. CMAP’s role is primarily to analyze the spatial context of each development and make recommendations concerning how well it meets regional goals. CMAP developed the Local Technical Assistance Program to help municipalities plan locally while advancing regional goals, including affordable housing. Most suburban municipalities lack the resources to do deep work on housing. CMAP intervenes to provide this support through its research and technical assistance and has created several fair housing resources. Somewhat unique to the region, the RTA was created to provide regional financial and plan- ning oversight to help coordinate service across transit providers serving the six-county region. RTA works closely with CMAP and provide formula and other transit funding. In its allocation of federal American Recovery Act funds in 2020–21, RTA adjusted its formulas to prioritize those areas serving low-income and other high-need neighborhoods (Horsting 2021). RTA also administers a community planning program that provides technical assistance and funding for

Case Examples 49   planning projects that support TOD and corridor studies. This past year the RTA partnered with CMAP on a call for projects limited to places of high need, and reduced match requirements for these communities to make it easier to access funding. CMAP also administers a Local Technical Assistance program funded from a variety of public and philanthropic sources, but primarily with federal Unified Work Program transportation planning funds. The program was initiated through a HUD Sustainable Communities Regional Planning grant, and since 2011, the program has committed approximately $20 million to over 200 local plans. Added to these regional partners, non-profit organizations that include MPC, the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT), Enterprise Community Partners, and Elevated Chicago are actively engaged to advocate for and facilitate better coordination of affordable housing and transit by elevating community voices, particularly those of Black and Brown residents, employers, and community-based organizations. The Elevated Chicago collaborative supported the creation of an ETOD work group in 2019 that currently includes almost 90 members and works closely with city agencies, the CTA, CMAP, and a variety of cross-sector organizations. The work group facili- tated the creation of the City’s first ETOD Policy Plan in 2021. Current implementation efforts include public engagement and outreach efforts, with a focus on engaging those communities experiencing displacement and historic disinvestment, to center transit discussions on the needs of vulnerable populations, including those living in affordable housing. A set of Elevated Com- munity Engagement Principles informed this process and were developed collaboratively between public and non-profit aligned organizations (Elevated Chicago 2019). Aligning Transit to Better Serve Low-Income Riders The focus of the city’s ETOD efforts is on fixed rail and high frequency bus routes. Much of the city of Chicago is served by a legacy network of well-established routes along a grid-based system with very frequent stops of a ¼-mile or less. Early analysis of ridership trends across CTA, Pace, and Metra systems during the COVID-19 pandemic found that riders who continued using transit reported household incomes below $50,000 and, particularly, below $25,000, or were essential workers in on-site jobs that did not allow for telecommuting (RTA 2021). None of the regional transit providers currently offer a reduced fare program specifically for low-income riders. CTA offers free rides for military, low-income seniors, and low-income disabled riders, and reduced fares to students, seniors, and disabled riders. RTA sets the policy and manages the reduced fare program. The income levels for eligibility range from $33,562 or less for an individual, $44,533 for a two-person household, and $55,500 for a household of three or more people. Pace does not have a reduced fare program. Cook County initiated a 3-year pilot program in January 2021 to offer reduced Metra fares and expand Pace bus service in the south suburbs and South Side Chicago along two of its lines. The pilot reduces fares 50% on the two Metra lines serving the area, creating parity with CTA fares. The county won an FTA Accelerating Innovative Mobility grant to subsidize any loss of revenue by the impacted agencies, and to support community outreach around the program (Greenfield 2020). The Chicago Department of Health currently runs a program with the CTA to provide assis- tance to unsheltered customers who have been using CTA trains and stations for shelter. Under the program, a team of health and social workers from The Night Ministry provide services 1–2 nights per week at 95th Street Station on the Red Line and the Forest Park Terminal on the Blue Line. These are the two CTA lines that operate 24/7. The team can provide immediate sup- portive services to unsheltered individuals, including health care, housing, and social services.

50 Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies With funding in 2018 from FTA’s TOD Pilot Planning grant program, CTA is also working to align housing with future transit expansion of the Red Line. This includes a Red Line Exten- sion Transit Supportive Development Plan currently underway that incorporates a strong public engagement element (CTA n.d.). The planning is being done in close coordination with the city’s Department of Planning and Development to coordinate on zoning and other needed changes to help this predominately single-family zoned area evolve into more TOD supportive land use and help stem persistent population loss. CTA is using a portion of the grant funding to pay for a part- time staff person at DPD (Dawson-Mooney 2021). In 2015, an FTA TOD Planning grant funded the Red-Purple Modernization (RPM) TOD plan to gather community input on redevelopment of parcels acquired for the construction project, including an implementation plan and request for proposal (RFP) scoring criteria that included an emphasis on affordable housing. Aligning Housing to Better Serve Transit Riders Housing costs are increasing in the Chicago region, and many households pay more than 30% of their income on housing. As shown in Table 13 (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy Data), many renters and homeowners are cost burdened both in the city and within the larger region. Renters are particularly stretched. Within Chicago renters and homeowners, equal percentages of homeowners and renters are severely cost burdened, whereas in the region, 24% of renters versus 11% of homeowners pay more than 50% of their income on housing. Since 2015, CMAP has helped to coordinate and provide technical assistance to the region’s PHAs, with a focus on supporting the allocation of HCVs and performing evaluation of access to transit (Scott 2021). The Regional Housing Initiative was incubated at MPC before CMAP took over responsibility. Both Chicago Housing Authority and Cook County participate. In ana- lyzing proposed new developments, HCVs, and use of low-income housing tax credits, CMAP helps the PHAs evaluate housing and location efficiency elements, including transit access. Figure 8 shows the percentage of LIHTC-funded affordable housing units located near transit. Roughly 80% of units are within a half-mile of transit, indicating both the prevalence of the regional transit network, historic patterns of racial and economic segregation, and policies by housing agencies to consider transit. The City of Chicago’s Department of Housing, which is a member of the ETOD Work Group, is also focused on access to transit in its recent work, including calling out TOD in 2021 revisions to the Affordable Requirements Ordinance (ARO), which serves as the Chicago’s inclusionary zoning policy (City of Chicago 2021b). Among other things, the revised ARO policy will incor- porate the following actions: • Extending the 20% set-aside into downtown and in high-cost community areas and/or dis- placement vulnerabilities. • Increasing the proportion of affordable units that must be built from 25% to 50% of set-aside. Owner Renter ≤30% >30% to ≤50% >50% Not available ≤30% >30% to ≤50% >50% Not available City of Chicago 68% 21% 25% 1% 51% 21% 25% 4% Chicago (MSA) 72% 15% 11% 1% 52% 21% 24% 3% Table 13. Cost-burdened households in Chicago and broader MSA (Source: HUD 2020).

Case Examples 51   • Allowing off-site units to be built in any part of the city lacking in affordable housing or threatened with displacement. • Requiring that if the triggering development is in a TOD zone, the off-site units must also be in a TOD zone. • Adding mandates and incentives for developers to create deeply affordable and family-sized affordable units. Prior to these changes, the ARO included a limited TOD density bonus and could be applied off-site. In rewriting the ordinance, the Department of Housing convened numerous stake- holders, including those who live in affordable housing. Transit access was a frequent issue raised as being important to residents. So too, was the need for a variety of housing types, including two- to six-unit flats, which are prevalent across Chicago, and which offer families an afford- able, larger housing option. Preserving these in transit-served locations is an important city goal (Soto 2021). The revised ARO is one of the City’s tools in the creation and preservation of affordable housing throughout Chicago. In March 2021, the Department of Housing also released the country’s first Racial Equity Impact Assessment (REIA) on its QAP, which sets criteria for the distribution of LIHTCs. The REIA will inform how, where, and to whom the department allo- cates tax credits, and how the Department of Housing incorporates a racial equity lens to garner opportunities for community wealth building (City of Chicago n.d.). The City’s 2019 ETOD ordinance required an analysis of TOD projects approved since the 2015 ordinance. The ETOD Policy Plan includes the results of this analysis, which found that fewer than 10% of recent TODs occurred in lower-income Southside and Far West neighbor- hoods, but instead were concentrated in more affluent Blue Line neighborhoods, the inner loop and downtown, and in near-Westside neighborhoods such as Logan Square, where gentrifica- tion pressures have pushed out many low-income Black and Brown households (City of Chicago 2021a). Few of these projects included affordable units. With the greater focus on ETOD by the city, including targeting housing and finance resources like tax increment financing and LIHTCs, this dynamic is starting to change. The Emmet Street project in Logan Square, directly adjacent to the Blue Line Logan Square station, Figure 8. Chicago LIHTC units by distance to transit (Source: FTA 2019a; NLIHC 2021a).

52 Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies is 100% affordable and funded with a mix of incentives. The project is built on a city-owned parking lot, which was donated to help reduce land costs (Dawson-Mooney 2021). The CTA is also engaged with ETOD projects despite the limited available surplus property it has, given that the system was developed over a century ago by private operators who did not have eminent domain and did not construct park and ride lots. The agency does not have a formal joint development or TOD policy. CTA is pursuing redevelopment of a parcel at 2525 N. Kedzie in the Logan Square neighborhood. CTA used the criteria developed in the RPM TOD Project described earlier in the RFP for this site (Dawson-Mooney 2021). It includes an emphasis on affordable housing, with city agencies providing information on various incentive programs that could be tapped to support financing affordable housing units. Conclusion The Chicago region demonstrates the opportunities and challenges that many large, older metropolitan areas face in coordinating housing and transit. On the one hand, the region has an extensive transit network and numerous cross-sector partners that can bring resources, tech- nical expertise, and coalition building necessary for coordination. On the other hand, this is a sprawling region with transit and affordable housing funding needs that far surpass existing resources. Much of the region’s suburban land use is not conducive to efficient local transit service, and the multiple layers of government make coordination, even within a defined geography, difficult. Administrative burdens, even between non-profit partners, make it a challenge to work cooperatively, especially with philanthropic partners, and government funding is often siloed, so that working across issues or addressing deeper systemic changes needed to address persis- tent racial disparities in transit service, housing, and economic development is sporadic at best. Within government, silos between agencies also create barriers to coordination. The Lightfoot administration is working to tackle this, with a staff person located within the mayor’s office to specifically coordinate ETOD efforts between housing, transportation, public health, and plan- ning departments, and sister agencies like CTA, RTA, and CMAP. Advocating outside one’s lane can be daunting, especially when the reasons and interventions for coordination are not clear and specific. Opportunities for deeper transformation have benefited in Chicago from the involvement of non-profit and community partners like MPC and Elevated Chicago, which work closely with government partners to engage community members directly impacted by policies and projects so that interventions happen with communities, not to communities. 4.6 Kansas City Case Example In recent years, recognition of the need to better coordinate transportation and affordable housing has taken root across the Kansas City metropolitan area, with the regional planning agency playing an important role in fostering discussions. Like other growing regions of the country, increasing costs of housing are making it a challenge for many to find an affordable place to live and for employers to attract and retain workers. Sprawling density in the region has made transit service challenging and expensive. Suburban communities that previously opposed affordable projects are now engaging in regional discussions to identify tools and resources to develop projects that are aligned with community goals and character. Introduced in 1969, KCATA provides transit service for the Kansas City region under its unified regional transit brand, RideKC, developed in 2015 for all public transit service providers in the Kansas City metropolitan area, including KCATA, KC Streetcar (Kansas City Streetcar

Case Examples 53   Authority), Johnson County Transit, IndeBus (Independence, MO) and Unified Government Transit (Kansas City, KS). The majority of transit central city and suburban service is provided by bus. In May 2016, streetcar service was reintroduced in central Kansas City. Other essential services provided by KCATA include paratransit, rail, and rapid bus transit. The region has also been piloting new micro-transit services to connect low-income households to suburban destinations. KCATA operates using less than 250 buses in its fleet during maximum operation. The neighborhoods with a significant number of affordable housing units are primarily served by at least hourly service. The Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) serves the nine-county Kansas City metro- politan area and provides a forum for the region to work together to advance social, economic, and environmental progress. In 2016, in conjunction with the cities of Kansas City, Indepen- dence, and Blue Springs in Missouri, the city of Leavenworth, Kansas, and the Unified Govern- ment of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas, MARC developed a regional housing plan required by HUD (MARC 2020c). The plan incorporated multiple data sources, including America Consumer Survey data, CoStar multifamily data, and other sources to assess the existing state of affordable housing and to inform the formulation of the goals and strategies that guide MARC’s work. The regional agency is currently working on several different initiatives designed to better coordinate housing and transportation, including the creation of an Equity Index, comparable to Portland, Oregon’s Economic Value Atlas, with support of the Brookings Institution (Tomer et al. 2019). Johnson County, one of the largest and most prosperous counties in the metropolitan region, has become more active in both transit and affordable housing partnerships convened by MARC and other regional partners. It is also undertaking its own initiatives. Planning Coordination Affordable housing is highly prioritized in MARC’s LRTP activities (MARC 2020a). These focus on centers and corridors to improve the diversity of land uses and make multi-modal transportation possible. MARC manages a regional “Sustaining Places Program” that provides planning grants to localities to support improved coordination of land use, housing, and trans- portation (MARC 2020b). The Creating Sustainable Places program, funded by a HUD Sustain- able Communities Regional Planning Grant, began in 2011 and addressed multiple aspects of sustainability, including the development of six corridor plans in the region (APA 2017). Since then, all of the funding rounds of the program have applied for and received Surface Transporta- tion Block Grant Program funds, which require a minimum 20% local match. Local match funds have come from a variety of sources, including Community Improvement Districts, partnerships between multiple agencies, transportation sales tax, and Community Development Block Grant funding, to name a few. The program’s scoring process specifically examines placemaking, housing, environmental characteristics, equity, redevelopment, transit access, existing infrastructure, property owner/developer involvement, and commitment to imple- mentation (MARC 2020b). The First Suburbs coalition, a group of close-in suburbs that formed during post-World War II development, undertook an analysis of housing options for each of the communities to better understand the breakdown in housing types (e.g., single family, duplex, and triplex), when they were built, and the price points of their housing. Each community received a report of the break- down along with geodemographic information detailing the dominant lifestyles within each community. The group has focused much of its recent work on cultivating Communities for All

54 Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies Ages, where individuals can age in place. In 2019, MARC organized suburban jurisdictions into housing cohorts for planning and design coordination (MARC 2020c; Palmer 2021). Aligning Transit to Better Serve Low-Income Riders Transit providers are prioritizing efforts to inform and engage residents of public housing when fare policy or service changes are being considered. Survey responses included simple collection measures such as outreach at bus stops. Recent engagement by RideKC on improving transit access for low-income riders is in response to requests by social service providers. Public housing organizations and city governments coordinate with KCATA to provide route and service information to residents of affordable housing. Transit access is also being consid- ered when making decisions about where to locate affordable housing projects. Coordination also occurs to provide transit passes and to inform local and regional transportation plans and transit investments. Prior to KCATA’s zero fare program, the Opportunity Pass was created in partnership with social service agencies to provide discounted passes to low-income residents. Regional access to jobs has also become a critical regional issue. Kansas City is a major logistics hub for the nation, and the majority of jobs in the sector are located in areas of the region that are not historically served or efficient to serve by transit. RideKC Development Corporation (RKCDC) is working to change this dynamic, recognizing that while transit won’t serve the entire region, future employment centers should not continue to be built without any eye to treating and accessing transit for workforce as both infrastructure and service (Starner 2021). Workforce access creates an important leverage point for coordinating housing and transit. Kansas City officials are exploring the concept of requiring a transit access evaluation for major developments, just as it currently requires traffic studies for new employment centers. Such a requirement would enable transit planners to be proactive rather than reactive in responding to development, with proposed projects reporting on existing transit infrastructure service, prox- imity to service, and what new infrastructure is required to support the project (Starner 2021). RKCDC is a 501c3 wholly owned subsidiary of KCATA, and was created specifically to play an economic development bridge between public policy, workforce access, transit, and housing. This has evolved to also include a focus on childcare access and efforts to ensure all residents have reasonable access to regional job opportunities. Since 2018, RKCDC has been involved in a number of planning and project development efforts, including issuing requests for proposals to redevelop key sites near transit. This has included several mixed-income projects utilizing LIHTCs. RKCDC can act as an equity-based developer, potential financing source, or a partner with a private developer to secure project financing (Starner 2021). The location of Urban Outfitters’s $420 million new logistics center on land sold by and near the Kansas Speedway in Kansas City, Kansas, closely fits this model of workforce access as a priority during the site location and incentive process (Hardy and Kite 2020; Starner 2021). RKCDC deferred sale of the land for 3 to 5 years. Both RKCDC and KCATA were actively included in the company’s months-long regional site search. Public transportation access was among Urban Outfitter’s top five site location requirements (Starner 2021). The Unified Gov- ernment of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas, negotiated incentives, including the first- of-its-kind agreement to build and provide new transit services. Urban Outfitters imposed a tax on the organization via a community improvement district to contribute funding to improve transit access (Hardy and Kite 2020; Starner 2021). KCATA partnered with Transdev (operator of KCATA’s fixed-route and paratransit ser- vices) to provide RideKC Freedom On-Demand, a 1-year pilot program that provides demand- response service for other individuals with disabilities and, in parts of the service area, older

Case Examples 55   adults (Roberts 2017). RideKC, in partnership with the Kansas City Veterans Administration and the Veterans Community Project, is honoring veterans through a free fare program. Kansas City’s transit agency began to implement a Zero-Fare Transit plan in 2019 (Casale and Sanderson 2020). The city is incrementally rolling out zero-free transit. In the 2020 budget, the city dedicated $4.8 million to support a zero-free transit system (Sanderson 2020). To make up the other $4 million, private funding was intended to be used in the form of additional business tax and/or parking or transportation fees, a similar tactic done with the RideKC Streetcar (Casale 2020). Fares have been eliminated for 25% of Kansas City’s ridership, including students and vet- erans, on one fixed-route bus along the east side of the city (Casale 2020). But Kansas City’s size, budgetary issues, geographic constraints, and historical sprawl present challenges for a full-scale rollout. Johnson County officials have been less supportive of zero-fares to build ridership. Prior to 2020, ridership was up 10%, therefore indicating prices are not what is stopping residents from taking public transportation. Other issues, such as increased consistency and frequency of ser- vice, are higher priorities for the county’s public transit funding. For example, if a rider were to take a bus from Kansas City to Johnson County, the transition back would not be free, including transfer stops. In 2019, one of the first micro transit services in the nation was adopted specifically to improve job access for low-income residents. KCATA and private companies, Bridge and Ford, began exploring micro transit service in the region in 2015, but implementation did not occur until 4 years later. Johnson County government has played a lead role in the recent micro transit pilot, using its procurement processes to implement a program in less than 6 months’ time to purchase three Ford Transit vehicles bought and licensed under a TransLOC partnership (Powers 2021). Micro transit may be an important tool for providing vulnerable populations with jobs access and other basic destinations (Powers 2021). It is a tool for first- and last-mile issues but not a replacement for fixed service. Johnson County is currently in the middle of a visioning process with the board to re-envision what the future can hold. In 2021, transportation was a major barrier for some residents when it came to getting vacci- nated. A new Cares Connect partnership between Truman Medical Center (TMC) and KCATA made sure underserved communities had equal access (Holwick 2021). The organizations worked with the city’s housing authority to identify people eligible for the vaccine and take them from their homes to TMC’s vaccination site. Aligning Housing to Better Serve Transit Riders The rising cost of housing has generated new conversations and alliances across the region. Both homeowners and renters are feeling the weight of housing costs, but to a lesser extent than seen in the other case example regions. Yet interestingly, in contrast to the other regions, a higher percentage of extremely cost-burdened households resides within the larger metro- politan area than within the central city. As shown in Table 14 (Comprehensive Housing Afford- ability Strategy Data), 20% of homeowners in the region are paying more than 50% of annual household income on housing versus 8% within the city, with similar trends among renters. Research on the proximity of LIHTC buildings to transit services revealed that over half of Kansas City residents living in affordable housing units (51.4%) have relatively good access to public transportation, living less than a quarter mile away from transit services (see Figure 9). The remaining residential units (48.6%) require traveling more than a quarter mile to access transit, with 19.8% of residents located over a mile away from transit services. The lack of coordination

56 Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies between affordable housing and access to transit leaves a significant number of low-income resi- dents challenged with navigating last-mile options when looking to take public transportation. Affordable housing resources have been harder to generate in the region than perceived (Palmer 2021). There have been challenges articulating the value of working regionally to spur development of more projects on the ground (Palmer 2021). Yet funders are eager to invest in affordable housing projects. The process was altered to provide an alternative to investing in the MARC housing partnership. Instead, funders can choose from a menu of options to support housing goals. The recognition of housing affordability is a new concept in Johnson County. Known as the most populous and densest county in Kansas, it is responsible for 30% of the state’s GDP and 25% of employment (EMSI 2021). One challenge that is present in Kansas City, MO, is the historical racism and institutionalized biases that have long contributed to stereotypes of who public transportation is for, especially for elected officials whose political headwinds hinder coordination efforts (Hopkins 2021; Powers 2021). Kansas City does not have any requirements or incentives in place to encourage the devel- opment or preservation of affordable housing in transit-served areas. The Kansas City Transit Oriented Development Policy was adopted as a guide for future development and public invest- ments near transit stations and along transit corridors by the City Council in May 2017 (City of Kansas 2017). In 2018, KCATA received an FTA TOD planning grant to plan for TOD along Owner Renter ≤30% >30% to ≤50% >50% Not available ≤30% >30% to ≤50% >50% Not available Kansas City 79% 12% 8% 1% 81% 11% 7% 1% Kansas City (MSA) 57% 21% 20% 2% 55% 21% 21% 2% Table 14. Housing-cost-burdened households in Kansas City and broader MSA (Source: HUD 2020). Figure 9. Kansas City LIHTC units by distance to transit (Source: FTA 2019a; NLIHC 2021a).

Case Examples 57   the Rock Island Railroad Corridor, a 17.7-mile corridor where a fixed guideway project is being planned to connect three major cities in the Kansas City region, and a second grant was awarded in 2019 to the City of Kansas City to plan for TOD along the 32-station Prospect MAX BRT project (FTA 2018). In January 2021, Kansas City passed an ordinance requiring that residential development projects with 12 or more units include affordable housing components as a condition for seeking public economic incentives (Wine 2021). The developer is required to designate a minimum of 10% of new residential units to households at or below 70% AMI and 10% of the residential units to households at or below 30% AMI. The ordinance does not include a focus or priority on transit corridors. Developers have the option to make a payment to the City in lieu of building the units (Wilson 2017). Conclusion Transit and affordable housing coordination efforts are in the early stages across the region. Initial coordination is still primarily at the grass-tops levels. There is a need to better align grants, incentives, and regulations. Kansas City housing advocates note that if affordable housing is only addressed in the urban core, too many families are cut out of the prosperity picture. Over the last couple of years, coordination is emerging through regional discussions among communities hungry for tools and resources to develop projects that are aligned with individual community goals and character. The unique bi-state dynamic creates a benefit and a challenge. Community demographics, political dynamics, and funding opportunities must be examined for both Missouri and Kansas. The work of the RideKC Development Corporation offers some unique insights into how transit agencies may evolve to take on larger economic development and housing roles. Beyond project financing, this new agency is tacking pre-development barriers and policy changes to de-risk development and density. Recent transportation initiatives created to aid low-income areas in getting access to jobs and the necessary public services will be important to watch and analyze. 4.7 San Francisco Bay Area Case Example The San Francisco Bay Area is a complex region with three core cities: Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose, spanning across a geography separated by water and mountains. It is home to some of the nation’s largest technology firms, which have fueled growth and escalated home prices. Its complexity is also reflected by the large number of transit agencies that operate there, with over 20 in the nine-county region. The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), BART, AC Transit in Oakland, the VTA in San Jose, and Caltrain commuter service are the largest providers. Among the five case examples, the Bay Area is the most racially diverse, has the highest median household income, and has some of the greatest income disparities (see Table 9). Years of under- production in housing have led to an extreme shortage of affordable housing across the Bay Area, and some of the highest home prices in the nation. Between 2010 and 2015, the San Francisco and San Jose metro areas had the largest jobs-to-housing gap in the nation (Salviati 2017). Recent state legislation has spurred a flurry of action by local and regional agencies. It is the result of advocacy by non-profit and private sector partners to accelerate coordination of transit and affordable housing policies, programs, and investments. Bay Area transit agencies were early leaders in establishing TOD guidelines with specific affordable housing goals.

58 Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies In 2005, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) became the first regional plan- ning agency and MPO to establish a TOD policy (MTC 2005). It requires transit-supportive land use as a condition for transit funding, predating similar changes made to FTA’s Capital Invest- ment Grant Program guidance. MTC has long supported linkages between transportation and land use through a variety of its planning and grant programs. It also helped to create a regional TOAH fund in 2011, with a $10 million commitment to seed a $50 million revolving loan fund in support of affordable housing at TOD projects throughout the region (Seifel Consulting and ICF International 2013). Since then, MTC has also helped to pilot other housing incentive pro- grams supporting compliance of state affordable housing and climate legislation. Regional transit agencies began exploring reduced fare programs before the COVID-19 pan- demic. The Clipper START pilot program initiated by MTC and Bay Area transit agencies in 2018 uses the Clipper transit fare payment system to reduce the cost of transportation for adults whose household incomes are no more than twice the federal poverty level, for example, $52,400 for a family of four (MTC 2020). Homelessness is a major social challenge transit agencies and regional agencies are working to address. BART is one of a few transit agencies in the country with an established homelessness outreach program (BART 2019). The region benefits from a deep bench of high-capacity non-profit housing and transporta- tion organizations, such as Enterprise Community Partners, the Low-Income Investment Fund, TransForm, SPUR, and Urban Habitat, to name just a few. Many of these groups are directly engaged in efforts to coordinate transit and affordable housing with an explicit focus on racial equity and meeting the needs of very low-income households. Philanthropy is also an impor- tant partner. For instance, the Great Communities Collaborative, created by the San Francisco Foundation and other regional and national funders more than 10 years ago, fosters cross-sector collaboration and has funded local station area planning and equitable development initiatives (Wampler 2021). Planning Coordination The statewide context for required coordination of affordable housing and transit is par- ticularly robust in California. The Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) program created by the legislature in 2014 is funded by state cap and trade auction proceeds to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and tackle affordable housing challenges (California Strategic Growth Council n.d.). To date, AHSC has invested $1.66 billion in 127 catalytic devel- opments across California that integrate housing and transportation with community infra- structure (Marcus and Rosenfeld 2021). AHSC funds affordable location-efficient housing and transportation investments that facilitate walking, biking, and taking public transit, with priori- tization for low-income and disadvantaged communities. This legislation builds upon SB 375 adopted in 2008 to reduce GHG emissions by requiring MPOs to develop Sustainable Communities Strategies/Regional Transportation Plans every 4 years that integrate transportation investments, land use growth, and regional housing alloca- tions as part of their long-range plans. Plan Bay Area meets this requirement and is currently being updated by MTC as Plan Bay Area 2050 (PBA 2050), scheduled for adoption in late 2021. PBA 2050 establishes major transportation investments and key growth geographies to accom- modate future jobs and population through 2050. California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) determines the total number and level of affordability of new homes the Bay Area needs to build to meet the housing needs at all income levels through the RHNA process. HCD also tracks surplus publicly owned land available and suitable for housing and facilitates connections between local govern- ments and affordable housing developers through Assembly Bill 1486, the Surplus Local Land Act. This new law aims to help overcome a major barrier to building new affordable housing,

Case Examples 59   which is acquiring suitable and affordable land. MTC is helping to implement the program within the Bay Area (Smith et al. 2018). Yet for localities and transit agencies, there are impor- tant tensions and trade-offs in thinking about future use of surplus lands. While some in the community prioritize these lands as a chance to build 100% affordable housing, local govern- ments and transit agencies face revenue shortages especially in the face of property tax caps. Honest dialogue is needed around expectations, goals, tensions, and financial priorities for the best public use of these lands (Greenspan 2021; Rabalais 2021). The California State Transportation Agency’s (CalSTA) Climate Action Plan for Transporta- tion Infrastructure released in March 2021 includes a strategy focused on leveraging transporta- tion investments to incentivize infill housing production (CalSTA 2021). This strategy builds on other administrative efforts. For instance, new housing criteria added to the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program guidelines in 2020 encourages housing to be located near existing transit and encourages housing as an equal consideration in corridor planning (Strategic Eco- nomics et al. 2021). To implement Plan Bay Area, and subsequent updates, MTC created the Priority Develop- ment Area (PDA) and One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) programs. PDAs are locally nominated areas near public transit with different tiers reflecting the frequency and type of transit service and are included in Plan Bay Area as one of the primary growth geographies. PDAs are meant to support more compact and mixed-use growth patterns near transit throughout the region. The PDA Program is one of the major avenues through which MTC facilitates coordination of housing and transit at the local level (MTC n.d.a). MTC’s PDA Planning Program and PDA Technical Assistance Grant Program provide funding and technical assistance to help juris- dictions conduct planning and zoning work. MTC developed the Housing Element Estima- tion Tool that enables local jurisdictions to visualize available sites that can be redeveloped to help them meet their RHNA housing requirements (Trivedi and Vuicich 2021). To date, there have been approximately 103,000 housing units, 75 million square feet of commercial space, and 130,000 jobs planned as a result of the PDA program. (Strategic Economics et al. 2021). The OBAG Program was adopted in 2012 to better integrate federal transportation funding with Plan Bay Area transportation and land-use goals (MTC n.d.b). It includes funding criteria that reward places for planning for TOD and for meeting RHNA goals. OBAG requires juris- dictions to meet specific state requirements, such as having a certified housing element and a Complete Streets policy in place, as an eligibility condition for receiving funding. The program is being revised to align with PBA 2050, and will include a stronger focus on aligning with afford- able housing investments, incentives, and AB 1486 (Trivedi and Vuicich 2021). MTC’s 2005 TOD policy applied to a selected set of new transit investments. MTC applied corridor-level housing performance targets to encourage cities to work jointly on planning for housing growth in station areas (MTC 2005). The numeric housing targets varied by transit type (rail, BRT, or ferry) and by planned growth capacity (Strategic Economics et al. 2021). The policy did not include specific affordable housing targets, but cities could count each affordable unit as two market rate units. According to a 2014 status report, the TOD Policy resulted in com- munities planning for 26,000 housing units and influenced local planning, especially in more suburban communities (CTOD et al. 2014). Aligning Transit to Better Serve Low-Income Riders Approximately half of Bay Area transit riders have a household income under $25,000, and three-quarters have a household income under $50,000 (CH2M 2017). While the region is exploring reduced fare programs through the integrated Clipper START program, several of its systems, such as BART, have distance-based fares that create challenges for low-income households to utilize rail and lead to an income dynamic between rail and bus ridership. This

60 Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies dynamic was seen during the COVID-19 pandemic as well in terms of ridership and service cuts (Thorne-Lyman 2021). BART, AC Transit, VTA, and SFMTA all responded to the project survey. With the exception of BART, which is only a heavy rail operator, the agencies provide a mix of bus, paratransit, and rail transit. All offer discounted fares for low-income riders, though BART’s participation is limited to the Clipper pilot mentioned earlier. SFMTA is notable in the variety of discounted fare programs it provides, and the availability of information on these programs. They include Free Muni for youth, seniors, and people with disabilities, and “Lifeline.” Lifeline is a Muni-only monthly pass for low- income customers offered at half the price of a standard monthly pass to those riders with a gross annual income at or below 200% of the federal poverty level (Dunn 2020). VTA and AC Transit also offer reduced fares to low-income riders using this same poverty threshold. Each of the agencies responding to the survey report considering equity in making service decisions, including compliance with Title VI requirements. SFMTA considers “equity neigh- borhoods” in its service planning, focusing on neighborhoods with lower incomes that rely heavily on transit as part of its larger Equity Strategy (SFMTA 2018). BART is currently updating its expansion policy to support the LINK-21 long-range rail program and is exploring income, housing affordability, and anti-displacement metrics. BART makes a special effort to inform and engage low-income and minority riders when fare policy and service changes are being considered, as defined in its Public Participation Plan (BART 2011). BART convenes two advisory committees: the Title VI/Environmental Justice Committee and the Limited English Proficiency Committee, comprised of members of community-based organizations that represent minority, low-income, and limited-English-proficiency riders (Thorne-Lyman 2021). This engagement does not explicitly target residents of affordable or public housing, but committee members represent neighborhood development corporations and other providers of affordable or senior housing and services as well as populations under- stood to overlap with minority and low-income designations. Bay Area transit agencies are also committing to affordable housing as a cornerstone of their TOD efforts. BART owns over 250 acres of developable land at 27 stations. Assembly Bill 2923, passed in 2018, required BART to update its joint development policies and set higher zoning standards for BART-owned properties in Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco counties to increase housing (Strategic Economics et al. 2021). In 2020, BART prepared a Draft TOD Work Plan that identifies its priorities for development over the next 10 years and establishes a set of performance targets. BART’s Affordable Housing Policy, adopted in 2016, includes a 35% overall target for income-restricted units, prioritizing units affordable to households at or below 50% of AMI. The policy allows BART to discount the value of their land up to 60% to achieve these goals (BART 2020). Caltrain, a commuter rail service operator, adopted a TOD policy by its Peninsula Cor- ridor Joint Powers Board in February 2020 with a goal of generating revenue and increasing ridership. The policy requires at least 30% of units be provided at below-market rents, with at least 10% below 120% AMI, at least 10% targeted to households with incomes of no more than 80% AMI, and at least 10% affordable to households with incomes at or below 50% AMI (Caltrain 2020). VTA has an extensive property portfolio with 25 sites identified as joint development oppor- tunities, totaling approximately 183 acres. The agency periodically conducts a portfolio analysis to identify priority sites for development. It considers the ability to increase transit ridership, the ability to obtain entitlements for TOD-supportive development, the ability to meet afford- able housing goals and catalyze TOCs in station areas, and other factors (Strategic Economics et al. 2021).

Case Examples 61   VTA’s TOD Policy was developed in 2009 and revised in 2019 (VTA 2019). Goals include increasing ridership and revenues for the system, but also creating equitable and complete TOCs around transit stations. The 2019 update includes specific policies on parking and affordable housing. Key elements of the affordable housing policy include the following: • An overall target of 35% of new units targeted to households earning no more than 60% of AMI has been set. • At least 20% of individual projects must be provided as affordable housing, with at least one- half targeted to households earning less than 50% of AMI. • The policy also outlines a variety of strategies to increase affordable housing in joint-development projects and implementation actions that VTA will undertake to achieve the affordable hous- ing goals. With funding from an FTA TOD Pilot planning grant, VTA worked closely with the cities of San Jose and Santa Clara and other stakeholders to create TOC playbooks that provide a set of strategies, policies, and actions for city staff, elected officials, and developers to advance a series of “big moves” that help to build TOCs along VTA rail stations (O’Malley-Solis 2021). The TOC Playbooks offer corridor-level and station-specific strategies for creating affordable and work- force housing, enhancing commercial areas, increasing mobility, and supporting neighborhoods that strengthen community identity. With additional funding from FTA, VTA and its partners are now working to advance these implementation efforts. The results are impressive. In April 2021, Google and the City of San Jose announced a historic $200 million community-benefit agreement for development around the Diridon VTA station, a focus of one of the playbooks, that includes the creation of 1,000 new affordable housing units (Angst 2021). Aligning Housing to Better Serve Transit Riders A growing housing affordability crisis has been at play for more than a decade in the Bay Area. The cap on property tax rates created by California Proposition 13 continues to make it challenging for most cities to raise revenues to support housing production. In early 2012, Governor Brown dissolved the approximately 400 redevelopment agencies that had provided critical funding and technical expertise on affordable housing production (Hood and Rao 2018). From 2007 to 2014, while the region met 99% of RHNA goals for above moderate-income households, most jurisdictions permitted less than a quarter of the total housing units needed for low- and very low-income households (Bromfield and Moore 2017). Displacement pres- sures have been extreme. Over half of low-income households are at-risk or already displaced (Urban Displacement Project 2015). Transit is one factor, but not the only, contributing to displacement of low-income residents (Chapple and Loukaitou-Sideris 2019). Despite having one of the highest household median incomes (see Table 9), households at almost all income levels are cost burdened. Bay Area renters are more likely than homeowners to be extremely cost burdened, with nearly a quarter in the region paying more than 50% for housing versus 12% of regional home owners (see Table 15). The Bay Area has the third-highest homeless population in the nation (Kirkey 2021). Across sectors and at all levels of government, action is being taken to increase and preserve affordable housing near transit. In addition to the state and regional transit agency efforts previously described, the City of San Jose and Oakland have strong commitments to ensure that all residents have decent, safe, and affordable housing. The San Jose Housing Department’s Policy and Planning Team and Oakland Housing support their departments’ programs by conducting a range of community engagement and data collection responsibilities, which have created a variety of plans and annual reports. One example is the San Jose Affordable Housing Investment Plan, a strategic document

62 Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies that prioritizes how the city will use its resources to implement its programs and policies in the current planning period to meet its housing objectives (Morales-Ferrand 2020). California Assembly Bill 1487, passed in 2019, created a new Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA) as a shared initiative between MTC and the Association of Bay Area Govern- ments (ABAG) to expand regional housing tools and financial resources. BAHFA and ABAG’s new Housing Committee will also coordinate on homelessness initiatives with the Regional Impact Council and All Home, a newly created regional non-profit organization focused on reducing unsheltered homelessness by 75% over the next 3 years (Kirkey 2021). These efforts are the result of work led by the Committee to House the Bay Area (also known as CASA), which convened between 2017–2018 and was staffed by MTC specifically to address the regional housing crisis. Among the 10 priority recommendations developed by CASA, whose membership included elected officials, major employers, philanthropy, and housing non-profits and developers, is the goal of establishing minimum zoning near transit and unlocking public lands for housing (CASA 2019). Given the expansive work by affordable housing providers, state housing agencies, and regional and local leaders, including prioritization of transit access in the allocation of federal low-income housing tax credits, it is not surprising that the region has the highest percentage (78.2%) of LIHTC projects located within ¼ mile of transit among the five case examples (see Figure 10). Figure 10. San Francisco Bay Area Percentage of LIHTC projects by distance to transit (Sources: FTA 2019a; NLIHC 2021a). Owner Renter ≤30% >30% to ≤50% >50% Not available ≤30% >30% to ≤50% >50% Not available City of San Francisco 70% 16% 13% 1% 61% 19% 18% 2% San Francisco (MSA) 71% 17% 12% 1% 53% 22% 22% 1% Table 15. Cost-burdened households in the City of San Francisco and MSA (Source: HUD 2020).

Case Examples 63   Conclusion The San Francisco Bay Area was especially hard hit by the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ridership on its transit systems, especially rail, plummeted and it was among the regions nationally that lost population. The precipitous drop in transit fare revenue has pre- sented a significant financial burden on operators, many of whom have reduced service. Given the shift in demographics of transit riders, affordable housing and jobs near transit may be even more of an imperative. Although planning for increased development capacity near transit is a necessary step for enabling TOD, it has not always translated to development moving forward. Indeed, housing production has fallen well below the planned capacity. This reflects a broader range of barriers to delivering TOD, including the lack of financial feasibility, particularly as land and construction costs have skyrocketed. The high cost of infrastructure improvements needed to accommodate transit-supportive land uses creates additional barriers. Most often, the type of infrastructure improvements required include for first- and last-mile connections and utilities upgrades (such as water, sewer, and stormwater) are challenging for jurisdictions and developers to provide. It has taken years for the current housing crisis to emerge. The diversity, consistency, and innovation of recent state housing, climate, and transportation legislative initiatives stand in stark contrast to other transit regions, where funding or legal barriers may exist at the state level that limit coordination between housing and transit. Transit agencies are playing a leading role in the Bay Area, utilizing their real estate assets, engaging in inclusive planning, and piloting reduced fare and homelessness prevention/intervention programs.

Next: Chapter 5 - Toward a Research Agenda on Transit and Affordable Housing Coordination »
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!