• strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /chroot/home/ctodorg/ctod.org/html/portal/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /chroot/home/ctodorg/ctod.org/html/portal/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 744.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /chroot/home/ctodorg/ctod.org/html/portal/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 607.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /chroot/home/ctodorg/ctod.org/html/portal/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 607.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_node_status::operator_form() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::operator_form(&$form, &$form_state) in /chroot/home/ctodorg/ctod.org/html/portal/sites/all/modules/views/modules/node/views_handler_filter_node_status.inc on line 13.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /chroot/home/ctodorg/ctod.org/html/portal/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_style_default::options() should be compatible with views_object::options() in /chroot/home/ctodorg/ctod.org/html/portal/sites/all/modules/views/plugins/views_plugin_style_default.inc on line 24.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_row::options_validate() should be compatible with views_plugin::options_validate(&$form, &$form_state) in /chroot/home/ctodorg/ctod.org/html/portal/sites/all/modules/views/plugins/views_plugin_row.inc on line 134.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_row::options_submit() should be compatible with views_plugin::options_submit(&$form, &$form_state) in /chroot/home/ctodorg/ctod.org/html/portal/sites/all/modules/views/plugins/views_plugin_row.inc on line 134.

housing

Preserving Opportunities: Saving Affordable Homes Near Transit

Study examines federally assisted affordable housing located in close proximity to public transportation in 8 cities

Preserving affordable housing near transit means more than simply saving a building—it means preserving opportunities for low-income families and seniors to access jobs and services. Next to housing, transportation is the second highest household cost for most Americans. Affordable housing located near transit allows families and seniors to live an affordable lifestyle and access employment, education, retail, and community opportunities.

Reconnecting America and the National Housing Trust identified federally assisted affordable housing located in close proximity to existing or proposed public transportation in 8 cities: Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Denver, New York City, Portland,St. Louis, and Seattle. We found that more than 100,000 federally assisted housing units sheltering more than 300,000 individuals in these cities are located in transit rich neighborhoods. Approximately 65,500 of these units- or 63 percent of total units near transit- are covered by federal rental assistance contracts expiring before the end of 2012.

Preserving Opportunities: Saving Affordable Housing Near Transit

TOD Case Studies: Implementation In Low- Income, Ethnically Diverse Neighborhoods

TOD Case Studies: Implementation In Low- Income, Ethnically Diverse Neighborhoods

These case studies, funded through the support of the Surdna Foundation, present transit-oriented development (TOD) examples from diverse, low-income neighborhoods around transit, all built within the last 10 years. The goal of this survey is to provide examples that can help spur development around Philadelphia’s underutilized transit resources in similar types of neighborhoods. To that end, the examples in these case studies all overcame barriers to implementation using innovative, but replicable approaches. These examples are intended to allow the Philadelphia Neighborhood Development Collaborative and others to advocate for more involvement by the public sector, test some of the same mechanisms for financing and land assembly, and provide examples of successful TOD to developers and community members.

TOD Case Studies: Implementation in Low- Income, Ethnically Diverse Neighborhoods

Case for Mixed-Income Transit-Oriented Development in the Denver Region

Study examines demand for TOD, barriers to it and tools to get around those barriers

The passage of the “FasTracks” ballot measure by metro Denver voters in 2004 signaled the start of a new era of transportation, growth and development in the area. FasTracks has terrific potential to deliver on its promises of reduced congestion, livable neighborhoods and greater economic competitiveness, but its success is dependent on the kind of development that grows up around new and existing transit stations.

Well-planned “transit-oriented development” (TOD) can foster greater use of FasTracks light rail by encouraging housing, retail and office developments in the districts around transit stops. Incorporating affordable housing into TODs presents opportunities to meaningfully address the region’s growing affordability crisis by tackling housing and transportation costs simultaneously—while expanding access to jobs, educational opportunities and prosperity for the many households living in the Denver region.

Why Transit-Oriented Development And Why Now? (2007)

TOD 101

Transit-oriented development or TOD is typically defined as more compact development within easy walking distance of transit stations (typically a half mile) that contains a mix of uses such as housing, jobs, shops, restaurants and entertainment. At Reconnecting America we believe projects should also achieve the goals listed here. TOD is really about creating walkable, sustainable communities for people of all ages and incomes and providing more transportation and housing choices (including townhomes, apartments, live-work spaces, and lofts). These neighborhoods provide for a lifestyle that’s convenient, affordable and active, and create places where our children can play and our parents can grow old comfortably.

Preserving and Promoting Diverse Transit-Oriented Neighborhoods (2006)

Preserving and Promoting Diverse Transit-Oriented Neighborhoods (2006)

It was not too long ago that our mass transit systems had become yet another symbol of disinvestment in urban America. As people exited cities for the suburbs, they left in their wake the decaying public amenities and assets that had given rise to cities in the first place —the schools, the infrastructure and the mass transit.

How times have changed. According to the American Public Transportation Association, riders in the U.S. took more than 9.7 billion trips on public transportation systems in 2005. Since 1995, public transportation use has increased 25 percent. There are 3,349 mass transit stations in the

U.S. today, and regions from coast to coast are building or planning to build new rail systems or expand existing systems. Over 700 new stations are currently under development.

A number of factors are driving this growth in transit use and construction. First, automobile transportation is increasingly expensive. Transportation — mostly fueled by the costs of owning and operating a personal vehicle — now costs as much or more than shelter in region after region. Studies show that expenditures for personally-owned vehicles drain household wealth and undercut community economic viability.1 Second, residents are looking for the convenience and access that alternatives to auto transportation can provide. And third, residents are tired of auto-related congestion and air pollution and are looking for alternatives.

Tools for Mixed-Income TOD

Tools and strategies used to create mixed-income and affordable housing near transit

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate and disseminate examples of tools and strategies from around the country that are being used to create mixed-income and affordable housing near transit. Through this report, we hope to encourage more communities, regional agencies, state and federal government, and developers to adopt and improve upon the successful strategies, and to spur ideas for other tools that do not yet exist.

The first half of the paper explains the general areas and ways in which the tools are used, as well as any limitations that currently exist, and the second half provides best practices and an actual example of the strategy or tool in a transit-oriented development.

Tools for Mixed-Income TOD

The Affordability Index

A New Tool for Measuring the True Affordability of a Housing Choice

This brief describes a new information tool developed by the Urban Markets Initiative to quantify, for the first time, the impact of transportation costs on the affordability of housing choices. This brief explains the background, creation, and purpose of this new tool. The first section provides a project overview and a short summary of the method used to create the Affordability Index. The next section highlights the results from testing the index in a seven-county area in and around Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN. To demonstrate the usefulness of this tool at a neighborhood level, the third section projects the effect of transportation and housing choices on three hypothetical low- and moderate-income families in each of four different neighborhoods in the Twin Cities. The brief concludes with suggested policy recommendations and applications of the new tool for various actors in the housing market, and for regulators, planners, and funders in the transportation and land use arenas at all levels of government.

The Housing and Transportation Affordability Index is a groundbreaking innovation because it prices the trade-offs that households make between housing and transportation costs and the savings that derive from living in communities that are near shopping, schools, and work, and that boast a transit-rich environment. Built using data sets that are available for every transit-served community in the nation, the tool can be applied in neighborhoods in more than 42 cities in the United States.1 It provides consumers, policymakers, lenders, and investors with the information needed to make better decisions about which neighborhoods are truly affordable, and illuminate the implications of their policy and investment choices.

The Affordability Index: A New Tool for Measuring the True Affordability of a Housing Choice

A Heavy Load

The combined housing and transportation burdens of working families (2006)

Nationally, for every dollar a working family saves on housing, it spends 77 cents more on transportation. This was one of the dramatic findings from the Center’s earlier study, Something’s Gotta Give, which reflects the basic tradeoff many working families face between paying a greater share of their income for housing or enduring long commutes and high transportation costs. But how does this tradeoff play out at the local level? Are there metropolitan areas in which this tradeoff is more or less pronounced? Where do working families end up living within each area, and how does the availability of housing affect their choices? And how does the varying cost of housing and transportation within a region affect families’ combined housing and transportation burdens?

Transit-Oriented Development

Moving From Rhetoric to Reality (June 2002)

Three major trends characterize metropolitan America at the beginning of the 21st Century. The first trend is the resurgence of investment in America’s downtown areas. We are seeing a re-inhabitation of our urban centers at a level that has not been experienced since the World War II. Data from the 2000 Census and analysis by the Brookings Institution Urban Center and the Fannie Mae Foundation show that this urban rebirth is a function both of people moving back to cities, and of immigrants choosing cities as destinations. Urban centers are once again seen as attractive, lively places to live and work, and as centers of intellectual and creative capacity.

The second equally powerful trend is the continuing growth and emerging maturity of America’s suburbs, many of which are struggling to become cities in their own right. Suburban areas are increasingly diverse in race, ethnicity and income, and increasingly experiencing the travails of rapid growth. These growth issues include the need to diversify land uses to build more solid revenue bases, the need to create urban centers, and the growing problem of traffic congestion along overtaxed suburban arterials, compounded by the many cul de sac neighborhoods. Suburbs are increasingly vital and also increasingly challenged to become more than bedroom communities.

Syndicate content