National Academies Press releases new research synthesis authored by MZ Strategies, LLC

March 23, 2022

American cities today face a myriad of challenges as they continue to recover, respond and redefine themselves in this new century. The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to be felt on transportation systems, housing markets, employment patterns, and most importantly, on households. While numerous local and state governments are experiencing a surplus of funding given stronger revenues than projected and a massive infusion of federal funding, many struggle to meet the growing housing affordability crises affecting regions large and small on the coasts as well as the heartland. Especially hard hit are public transit agencies providing critical mobility service in rural and urban areas. Even before the pandemic, many struggled to maintain transit ridership often as rising housing prices and gentrification pushed many Black and Brown riders into neighborhoods and towns not well served by transit. Far too many Americans, especially in rural and suburban areas, who cannot drive or choose not to, or are low-income or disabled, have not had adequate public transportation options for most of their lives.

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. Affordable transit enables these households to have more money available to spend on other needs, including housing.

The lack of affordable, reliable, and accessible transit prevents residents living in affordable housing from fully participating in the regional economy or achieving a high quality of life. Despite this fundamental nexus, many transit agencies fail to prioritize frequent, high-quality service to areas with concentrated affordable housing. Within regions, major employers continue to locate in suburban areas not well served by transit, exacerbating these challenges.

TCRP Research Synthesis 162, authored by MZ Strategies, LLC is available for free download or to order a hard copy via the TCRP website available here: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/26542/coordination-of-public-transit-services-and-investments-with-affordable-housing-policies

MZ Strategies, LLC is extremely pleased to have its research on the coordination of public transportation and affordable housing published today by the National Academies Press. TCRP Research Synthesis 162, “Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies” provides a snapshot of past and present approaches to aligning transit and affordable housing. While housing affordability is a challenge affecting a growing number of households, this research synthesis is focused on households earning at or below 80% of area median income. These low-income households face the greatest housing cost burdens and are more likely to rely on transit to provide mobility

Through case studies of Atlanta, Boise, Chicago, Kansas City and the San Francisco Bay Area region, this report describes the ways that transit agencies and affordable housing policy makers and service providers are innovating and partnering, but also the significant gaps, missed opportunities and needs that remain unmet. The report includes results from a national survey of 51 transit agencies conducted during spring of 2021 that asked respondents to report on ways their own agencies were approaching coordination, and their perceptions of how well other regional housing partners consider and prioritize transit access.

Key Findings.

The results are mixed and show a clear need for much greater coordination and alignment. Residents of affordable housing are not often well served by basic transit service, with only a third of respondents reporting that most neighborhoods with high levels of affordable housing had transit service with 30-minute frequency or less. The lack of frequent, reliable transit service makes it extremely difficult for these households to access and maintain regional employment, educational, and health care opportunities or meet other critical mobility needs. Hourly service simply isn’t good enough. As one transit rider in Richmond, Virginia shared with local transit advocacy group, RVA Rapid Transit : a bus that comes only once an hour doesn’t enable them to apply for or even consider many jobs that could raise their income and provide greater economic stability, use transit to get groceries, or take their child to the doctor.

Suburban communities and rural areas 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 transportation costs. Beyond housing alignment, coordination and engagement with regional employers is a critical factor, especially those locating in suburban areas where transit service is challenging to provide.

Affordable housing production and preservation tools are not meeting the needs of very-low-income households. Transit systems are feeling the effects whether in addressing homelessness and related safety concerns, or through reduced ridership as residents are displaced from previously affordable neighborhoods served by transit.

Policies to provide more affordable transit fares and redesign transit networks to better connect low-income communities to essential destinations can help rebuild ridership. Improved planning coordination between federally required housing and transportation plans can help to leverage funding streams including additional private and philanthropic resources. Commitments by transit agencies to develop housing near stations and along transit corridors that include affordable housing are recasting transit as more than mobility but as a community development tool. All of these efforts benefit from engagement by and with those living in affordable housing, whether subsidized housing or in lower income neighborhoods where transit access itself provides a ladder to opportunity.

Connecting with those living in affordable housing to engage them on transportation issues can be important to ensure that disadvantaged job seekers and lower-income workers have their needs considered in transit planning, service and fare policy. Transportation barriers create challenges for these workers in urban, suburban and rural neighborhoods who may not have access to an automobile to reach job opportunities or other essential destinations.

Half of agencies surveyed reported that they inform and engage residents of affordable housing and public housing transit riders when fare policy or service changes are being considered. Notable targeted outreach strategies included one agency who assembles a group of engaged residents called the "Equity Cabinet" to help shape a framework to update policies to be equity-centric. The group, while not specific to public housing, includes both residents, providers and policymakers who advocate for low-income people and those in public housing. Another agency developed an ambitious communications strategy that includes targeted efforts to keep low-income residents informed as well as residents who are non-English speakers. Strategies shared in the survey among respondents include using multiple media, posting signs in the neighborhood, posting signs on buses, conducting radio interviews, and social media advertisements.

Perhaps the most direct way that many transit agencies report coordination on affordable housing issues is through their transit-oriented development (TOD) policies and projects. Of the transit agencies surveyed, 73% confirm engaging in TOD with 14 agencies reporting that their agency has a TOD and/or Joint Development policy that specifically prioritizes affordable housing. Eleven additional agencies do not have a formal TOD policy but do encourage greater density, multi-family housing, and more compact residential housing development near transit.

Transit agencies are split on prioritizing affordable housing in their processes to dispose of surplus properties for redevelopment. Only 10 transit agencies report specific affordable housing targets, which can be either a portfolio percentage or a hard number of units to build over a specified period. For example, “at least 35% of units being affordable for households earning at or below 60% of AMI,” or “1,400 units over the next 10 years.”

Twenty-three transit agencies report considering the impacts of gentrification or displacement of low-income residents as part of their TOD and/or joint development policy. However, 83% of those agencies do not have anything that is formally adopted. Only four survey respondents have specific policies or resolutions in place to address displacement.

Image developed by JNJ Creative (artist Janell Nelson) for Elevated Chicago and City of Chicago’s Equitable Transit-Oriented Development outreach (one of the regions spotlighted in the case studies developed for TCRP Research Synthesis 162).

LA Metro’s Equitable Transit Oriented Communities Policy directs the agency to evaluate the regulatory environment when planning high-frequency service and prioritizes service investments in areas that have inclusionary policies or anti-displacement measures in place. The Maryland Transit Administration works with the Purple Line Corridor Coalition to address preservation of affordable housing and small business retention along the new light rail corridor connecting several Maryland suburban communities outside of Washington D.C.. TriMet in Portland, Oregon is pledging to deliver hundreds of affordable housing units to offset the gentrification effects of a proposed new light rail alignment.

Others are working to create these types of policies. For instance, Sound Transit incorporates TOD criteria as a decision-making factor during alternatives development, alternatives selection, design and transit project delivery including to “identify and pursue strategies that minimize displacement of existing businesses and individuals from properties impacted by Sound Transit.” BART is currently developing an anti-displacement strategy as part of implementing state legislative requirements.

Cross-sector collaboration is a key ingredient to successful coordination. Non-profit partners, philanthropic organizations, and academic institutions play important roles to advocate, plan, design, and implement solutions for improved alignment of housing, transit and equity goals, funding, and policy adoption. These organizations often provide the glue that sustains coordination.

Towards a future research agenda.

Research Synthesis 162 provides a useful snapshot of current efforts, particularly those undertaken by transit agencies, to engage on affordable housing and provides a synthesis of recent academic research on this topic. However, considerably more research, guidance and innovation is needed to better enable decision makers, public transit and affordable housing providers, transportation and land use planners, and community advocates better information on the tools, approaches and data that can lead to improved coordination. The following questions provide just a sample of the issues that policy makers, practitioners and researchers still need to tackle:

· How can transit ridership recovery better support low-income riders? Additional research is needed to evaluate and identify the impact of residential displacement of low-income households on decreasing transit ridership. This trend predated the COVID-19 pandemic and may be key to transit recovery plans. Increased analysis of the impact of affordable housing or ETOD to increase and stabilize transit ridership would be useful to the field, rather than research focused primarily on the potential for displacement near transit to occur.

· How do transit network redesigns and affordable fare policies impact low-income riders? Research questions exist around the equitable ways to redesign transit networks and affordable fare policies that include successful engagement and analysis of low-income rider needs. Similarly, more information is needed on the parking needs and trends of residents living in affordable housing developments near transit, and any disparate impacts that parking pricing or transportation demand management strategies may have on low-income residents who do rely on a car.

· How can transit agencies better partner with housing providers on transit issues? New technologies may enable transit agencies to offer reduced fares, but more research is needed on the feasibility and cost of adopting these types of approaches relative to their value. Partnerships with affordable housing and service providers appears to also be critical to their use, yet limited guidance exists on how to establish and maintain these relationships by transit agencies with non-profit and community-based organization and with other public agencies.

· How can agencies best engage, and what strategies yield optimal transit and equity results for low-income households? As more transit agencies are engaging directly in affordable housing whether through joint development, disposal of surplus properties, and ETOD policies, additional research is needed to inform the types of anti-displacement tools that have the greatest impact on helping existing residents and businesses remain and maintain affordable rents and home values. Best practices on how to partner and fund community-based organizations and non-profits to assist in this type of work is also needed.

· How can regional coordination improve to address the suburbanization of jobs and poverty? The changing dynamics of suburban communities, and how best to coordinate and provide transit or other types of mobility service for low-income residents and neighborhoods with higher levels of affordable housing, is a challenge that many transit agencies and regions face. Developing partnerships and rethinking economic development approaches to include intentional transit and affordable housing strategies as part of regional and local business location and expansion efforts remain a critical and largely unmet need. Efforts in Kansas City, for example, show innovative ways to specifically coordinate transit with suburban job access and affordable housing. Large employers, such as Amazon, are stepping forward to provide affordable housing funding yet broadly speaking transit access is not sufficiently valued by employers, especially in considering the cost and access challenges low-income workers may face.

· How can transportation considerations be elevated in regional and local housing plans and investments? On average, transportation and housing are the two largest annual household costs for American households. Yet consideration of each remains largely siloed. More can be done to align local housing and regional transportation plans to comply with federal fair housing requirements, increase suburban support for housing choice vouchers, and remove regulatory barriers to new housing construction. Research is needed to illustrate successful strategies for doing this type of coordination, and to show the impact on housing goals of improved coordination with transit.

· How are housing stakeholders helping to fund coordinated approaches? The survey and case studies uncovered an emerging trend whereby transit agencies are partnering with private funders, including community-development finance institutions (CDFIs) and banks, and major national employers to establish and administer ETOD funds. Analysis is needed of these pooled funds, to better understand how they can be structured, the role of transit agencies or other transportation partners like metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), their financial sustainability, and impacts on stabilizing transit-serviced neighborhoods and contributing to ridership.

· What role can state agencies play? Ways that state departments of transportation (DOT) or state housing agencies are engaging to facilitate or impede coordination was not specifically explored in this research synthesis beyond cursory discussion in the case studies. State governmental organizations, funding and statutory requirements play an important role in facilitating or limiting coordination. Areas for improved coordination between state housing agencies and departments of transportation remain unaddressed. This is particularly important for understanding opportunities and challenges that exist in rural communities where state agencies play a critical funding role.

Looking Ahead.

Significant silos exist within and between government that make the coordination of affordable housing and transit challenging. Coordination that is emerging often results from the growing housing affordability crisis playing out in regions large and small. Yet transit is also in crisis as agencies rebuild ridership and revenues.

Stronger consideration and prioritization of the needs of low-income riders who live in affordable neighborhoods and public housing can be seen as a transit strategy. Yet this requires new tools, mindsets and partnerships. Tensions may exist between using transit real estate assets to generate revenue to support transit operations, versus to build affordable housing. Likewise, trade-offs exist between subsidizing affordable transit fares versus expanding transit service or increasing frequency and reliability.

New federal initiatives to enhance coordination across federal agencies, to elevate and prioritize the needs of disadvantaged communities and to address the structural impacts that systemic racism including in transportation and housing policies has on households and neighborhoods create real potential for change. Beyond making plans, the emergence of billions of dollars in new federal infrastructure funds to improve transit, reconnect communities, and invest in better mobility access must result in better future coordination. Whether it does relies upon state, regional and local implementation partners. It is essential not only to the success of transit agencies, but most importantly to our communities and to the millions of households who struggle each day to find an affordable place to live, to use reliable transit to access jobs and other key destinations, and to fully engage in their communities in ways that don’t require.

Coordinating both public transit and affordable housing starts and ends with centering these discussions, policies and investments on the public who they serve. Photo from Soccer in the Streets, one of the community-centered programs transforming MARTA stations and communities in Atlanta, another of the case study regions highlighted in TCRP Synthesis 162. (Photo credit: Soccer in the Streets).

NOTE: Tremendous thanks to my collaborators on this project: Dr. Kathryn Howell of VCU and Ashley Posthumus; to Chesley De Leon who helped with graphics; to the TCRP Advisory Panel especially Mariela Garcia-Colberg, and to the many individuals who agreed to be interviewed and who responded to our project survey. The months in which this work was undertaken was an incredibly hard time for many of us. The time and insights you shared are deeply appreciated, especially given the many competing demands you faced. This report would not have been possible with you! ~ Mariia