Jobs/ Housing Balance: Equity and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Benefits

1. Jobs/ Housing Balance: Equity and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Benefits Research and Analysis from the Center for Neighborhood Technology(CNT) and the California Housing Partnership Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California Conference, October 3rd, 2014

2. Housing Need Reports CHPC reports available on 4 Bay Area counties highlight affordable housing need: • Rental housing deficit for VLI renters • Divergence between rents and incomes • Cuts in local, state, and federal funding

3. Housing Need in the Bay Area Deficit of Homes Serving Very Low Income (VLI) Renters CHPC Analysis of 2007-2011 HUD CHAS data based on NLIHC Template

4. Housing Need in the Bay Area The shortage of affordable rental housing means 57% of the Bay Area’s VLI renter households are “severely rent burdened”- paying more than 50% of income in rent. CHPC Analysis of 2007-2011 HUD CHAS data

5. Housing Need in the Bay Area Who are VLI workers? Jobs with median earnings less than 50% AMI for a family of 3 in Bay Area Counties: Alameda County: Substitute Teachers ($42,070), Dental Assistants ($37,670), Childcare Workers ($21,970) San Francisco & San Mateo Counties: Medical Assistants ($40,940), Preschool Teachers ($35,870), Cashiers ($23,800) Santa Clara County: Substitute Teachers ($41,810), Security Guards ($30,970), Retail Salespeople ($22,330)

6. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Potential of Locating Housing Near Jobs and Services New Research on Location Efficiency from the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) and California Housing Partnership

7. Prior Research Efforts • CHPC/TransForm/CNT previously documented the strong correlation between VMT, income and proximity to high quality transit. • Findings supported investing GGR funds in TOD affordable housing. • Prior research did not look at VMT reduction potential of areas less well served by transit that have VMT reduction potential by locating homes near jobs and services.

8. California Household Travel Survey Data • 2010-2012 California Household Travel Survey (CHTS) surveyed over 40,000 households in all of California’s 58 counties between January 2012 and February 2013. • Households reported on all travel for a 24-hour period. Surveys were conducted every day of the year.

9. Context: Three Place Types Rural: USDA designation of areas eligible for rural housing assistance (Sonoma, Cloverdale) Major Region: Non-rural households of San Francisco, San Mateo, Alameda, Contra Costa, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego Counties Small/ Medium Size City: All remaining non-rural households including Santa Rosa, Petaluma, Vallejo, Fairfield, Vacaville, Fresno, Stockton, Monterey, Santa Cruz, Riverside, San Bernardino,

10. Small/ Medium Size Cities Maps Major metros shown in blue Small/ medium size cities shown in brown Rural areas in yellow

11. Key Research Questions • How close does a home need to be to jobs and essential services to significantly reduce VMT? • How big are the VMT differences?

12. Quantifying Location Efficiency Tried two ways to quantify VMT impacts, by-- • Sites of essential services (libraries, banks, schools, grocery stores, etc.), examining distance to CHTS households, and comparing VMT effects. • Usingemployment data from Census (LODES) to find job density around CHTS households then analyzing VMT – job density offers potential to reduce trips to work and serves as proxy for access to goods and services

13. Choosing an Approach • Job Density was always a stronger predictor of VMT reduction. For this reason, CNT’s proposed model emphasizes job density rather than specific amenities. • Tested many combinations of employment types and different buffer widths around households. • Employment density within a two mile buffer of a household (which results in about 12.5 square miles) produced the most statistically significant results.

14. Job Density Findings • For each place type, job density is a strong, statistically significant predictor of VMT reduction. • Average Rural and Large Metro Households at 80th percentile of job density drive about 6 miles less per day than the same household at the 20th percentile. • The reduction is 7 miles per day in Small Cities.

15. Major Region VMT by Job Concentration All income groups tend to have lower VMT when living in areas of greater job density and higher transit service. ELI and VLI households have the greatest elasticity of VMT reduction in relation to increasing job density.

16. Small/ Medium Size Cities VMT by Job Concentration All income groups tend to have lower VMT when living in areas of greater job density. ELI and VLI households have the greatest elasticity of VMT reduction in relation to increasing job density.

17. Map of Small/Medium Size City Areas with Highest Job Density CHTS households living in small/ medium size cities with greater job access are shown in red Many small to medium size cities throughout the state have areas where households are close to denser concentrations of jobs Santa Rosa Stockton Modesto Fresno Salinas

18. Rural VMT by Job Concentration All income groups tend to have lower VMT when living in areas of greater job density. ELI and VLI households have the greatest elasticity of VMT reduction in relation to increasing job job density.

19. Key additional finding: Multi-family Housing = Lower VMT Even while controlling for income and household demographics, households in multiunit residences drove less in all three place types. These impacts were almost twice as large in the rural areas than the other two place types.

20. Conclusions • Locating housing near greater density of jobs is associated with lower VMT in all regions of the state. • ELI and VLI reduce VMT by greater percentages in response to higher job density and increased transit access. (greater elasticity of VMT to job density) • ELI and VLI households in small cities show greater differences in VMT when living in jobs rich areas than higher income households. • Multifamily housing provides heightened VMT reduction benefits.

21. Contacts California Housing Partnership Corporation James Pappas HousingPolicy & Preservation Associate jpappas@chpc.net or 415-433-6804 x 320 Megan Kirkeby Sustainable Housing Policy Manager mkirkeby@chpc.net or 415-433-6804 x 316