MZ Strategies was thrilled to see the release last month of the report that we authored for the Transit Cooperative Research Program examining ways that public transportation and affordable housing are being coordinated (TCRP Synthesis 162). Through a national survey, literature review and case studies we found many promising and, in some cases, innovative ways coordination is happening. Yet, too often cities, transit agencies, state and regional transportation and housing agencies, and affordable housing providers are not adequately coordinating or prioritizing either.

Improving coordination can make a real difference in the lives of millions of low-income people, including seniors, those with disabilities or limited mobility, and families with children. Reduced fare structures for low-income households are a great start but can reach more households when they are distributed by those providing supportive services or helping households access housing choice vouchers to find housing in areas with greater economic opportunity. Evaluating the combined household costs of housing and transportation can be a powerful performance metric for regional planning agencies and metropolitan planning organizations. But even more powerful can be prioritizing transportation investments including those to improve transit service in communities with higher levels of affordable housing. Creating capital funds to support building new housing near transit (i.e., transit-oriented development or TOD) can help to boost transit ridership and create economic wealth but requiring that a portion of new housing be affordable to households earning less than the area median income can help mitigate displacement for some families. These are just a few of the ways that coordination can occur and create multiple housing, transportation, and economic benefits.

Last month I wrote about some of the key findings from the national survey conducted to inform this research synthesis. This blog post will focus on what we uncovered through the case studies of efforts underway in Atlanta, Boise, Chicago, Kansas City and the San Francisco Bay Area. To read the full case studies and report please download the report available through the National Academies of Science via this link.

The five selected case study regions reflect a variety of approaches and barriers to the coordination of affordable housing and transit. Their selection is not meant to suggest these five places are doing the best nationally, nor does the omission of other regions suggest they may be lacking. Rather, these five represent a spectrum of places, approaches, and issues. Each of the selected regions responded to the project survey and offer innovative approaches to ETOD, network redesign, affordable fare policies and planning coordination. All but Boise have received at least one federal TOD pilot planning grant. (Table 1.)

The full discussion of the five case studies begins on page 35 (chapter 4) of the TCRP Research Synthesis 162.

Each case study includes a transit proximity analysis of affordable housing units funded with low-income housing tax credits to give some sense of general accessibility. It is encouraging to see that for all, over half of LIHTC projects are within a quarter mile of transit yet large portion of this inventory is located more than a mile away from a bus stop or rail station. Data is not readily available regarding frequency of service, so the full picture of access is limited. (See Table 2.)

The LIHTC program is the most significant tool used in this country to build new affordable housing.

Cross-cutting Regional Case Study Themes

Several similarities exist across the five case studies 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.

· 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 households, 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 towards 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 transportation costs. Employers also face worker accessibility constraints.

· State governmental organizations, funding, and statutory requirements play an important role in facilitating or limiting coordination.

· 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.

· New financing tools and regional policies are being crafted to leverage private sector partnerships and improve coordination against the backdrop of racial inequality and low-density development.

MARTA is working with City, non-profit partners, and large financial institutions to support greater development of affordable housing near its stations (Photo Credit: SPARCC)

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. Yet the City’s growing 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. MARTA’s Board approved a TOD policy in 2010, but it has taken over a decade to see development happen. Given the slow pace of construction and permitting for new TOD projects coupled with the current need for affordable housing, MARTA developed in parallel partnerships to fund preservation of existing affordable units.

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 affordable units. It also has an initiative with Goldman Sachs that provides an additional $200 million for new TOD development near MARTA stations. 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. Today 18 projects are currently in development of which 14 include affordable housing.

Boise is the smallest case study regions and served by bus and paratransit service. Yet, it has experienced the most rapid population growth among those regions studied. (Valley Transit Photo Credit: BoiseDev.com)

In Boise, the smallest of the case study 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. Boise has made many attempts at regional plans but lacks local implementation to expand transit service. 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 from the state or region precludes transit projects being included in long range transportation plans and investment programs. This creates a self-defeating circle whereby population is growing exponentially without parallel investments to expand mobility options.

Of the transit that is provided, several options are offered to ensure low-income and disabled individuals have access and that fares are affordable. Coordination between affordable housing and transit providers and advocates is in its beginning stages. Funding challenges are daunting and real, but partnerships with non-profit partners can provide important new resources and capacity. Often bureaucratic barriers impede on the progress that occurs. Improving strategies to support neighborhood collaborations and partnerships with emerging players like community land trusts can help better address both transit and affordable housing needs.

Community based organizations like the Latin United Community Housing Association (LUCHA) have been pushing the City and transit agencies to elevate equity in efforts to address residential displacement, transit access and TOD. (Photo credit: Elevated Chicago via LUCHA)

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. MZ Strategies has been involved in a number of these efforts through our work with Elevated Chicago and SPARCC. The City of Chicago’s Department of Housing, which is a member of the City’s ETOD Work Group is 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. Among other things, the revised ARO policy will:

· Extend the 20% set-aside into downtown and in high-cost community areas and/or displacement vulnerabilities.

· Increase the proportion of affordable units that must be built from 25% to 50% of set-aside.

· Allow off-site units to be built in any part of the city lacking in affordable housing or threatened with displacement.

· Require that if the triggering development is in a transit-oriented development (TOD) zone the off-site units must also be in a TOD zone.

· Add mandates and incentives for developers to create deeply affordable and family-sized affordable units.

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 Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) which sets criteria for the distribution of LIHTCs. The REIA will inform how, where and to whom the department allocates tax credits, and how DOH incorporates a racial equity lens to garner opportunities for community wealth building. But this is not without continued push back as the City’s efforts to reduce outdated parking norms for affordable housing projects faces community resistance.

RideKC Development Corporation is actively pursuing opportunities to redevelop surplus transit sites and to engage regional employers and affordable housing providers to improve access. (Photo credit: bizjournals.com)

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. Like other growing regions of the country, growing 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. 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, proximity to service, and what new infrastructure is required to support the project. This explicit linkage between transit service and economic development provides a powerful leverage point for coordinating affordable housing and public transportation in meaningful ways.

Residents, local community-based organizations, regional affordable housing developers and non-profits have been deeply engaged for years in the Bay Area to elevate affordable housing, racial justice and transit access needs yet numerous challenges remain in one of the highest cost regions in the nation. (Photo credit: SPARCC)

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 investments, with a prioritization for transit agencies and MPOs to address the needs of low and very-low-income residents. Bay Area transit agencies were early leaders in establishing TOD guidelines with specific affordable housing goals. MZ Strategies was part of a team led by Strategic Economics to support the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in updating its regional TOD policy which was first established in 2005.

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 Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing (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. Since then, MTC has also helped to pilot other housing incentive programs supporting compliance of state affordable housing and climate legislation.

Regional transit agencies began exploring reduced fare programs before the COVID19 pandemic. 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. 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 and action plan.

Looking Beyond

Transit and affordable housing coordination is a complex story to tell. While the federal transit program began as part of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, today housing and transit issues are often siloed including at the federal level but especially at the state and local levels. Yet, transit is essential to providing mobility for vulnerable and disadvantaged populations. It has the potential to serve riders across income levels and occupations, and for a variety of trips beyond accessing jobs. However, the ability of transit to effectively meet these goals requires alignment and coordination with land use and housing policies, especially at the local level.

Urban and rural communities are losing affordable housing stock as housing markets continue to increase faster than incomes in almost every part of the country. The long history of intersectional housing and transportation racial segregation continues to result in communities of color often not well served by transit, or by affordable, quality housing.

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.

Each of the five case studies offer promising models for how to improve coordination whether that is through new financial tools, better alignment of housing and transportation plans especially those that influence where investments are made, and explicit ways to engage and prioritize low-income households, workers, and service providers in the implementation of programs. Looking ahead, more intentional coordination is required and hopefully more innovation will be sparked as transit agencies continue the hard work of recovering ridership that has plummeted during the COVID pandemic; as regions struggle to provide and maintain housing affordable to all households but especially those at the lowest income levels; and as public agencies and financial institutions commit to addressing systemic barriers that continue to reinforce racial disparities.

This blog provides only a snapshot. Please download the full report for more details on each of the five case studies and other findings from this research project.

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 for the case studies 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