1 / 38

APA Upper-Midwest Four State Conference

APA Upper-Midwest Four State Conference. October 4, 2006. Center for Transit-Oriented Development. Create a national marketplace for TOD, working with cities, transit agencies, developers, investors and communities.

olaf
Download Presentation

APA Upper-Midwest Four State Conference

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. APA Upper-Midwest Four State Conference October 4, 2006

  2. Center for Transit-Oriented Development • Create a national marketplace for TOD, working with cities, transit agencies, developers, investors and communities. • A collaboration with Reconnecting America, The Center for Neighborhood Technology, Strategic Economics, and real estate and transit experts • Performing joint research effort funded by FTA and HUD to look at linkage between TOD and affordable housing http://www.reconnectingamerica.org

  3. Overview • What is the H+T Affordability Index? • Why / Purpose • How does it work: Model Mechanics and Background • Who: Potential Applications • When: Project Timeline and Index Availability

  4. H+T Affordability Index Equation H+T Index = (Housing Costs + Transportation Costs) Income What is the Housing + Transportation Affordability Index? • A tool to measure the 2 largest household costs – housing and transportation – by neighborhood. By measuring these costs, the H+T Affordability Index is also measuring the quality, attractiveness, and convenience, of the neighborhod.

  5. Urban Market Decisions: Industry Roundtables • Commercial Retail Development (ICSC) • Credit Scoring for Small Business (ICIC) • LMI Online Consumer Preferences (One Econ) Why: The Power of Information Brookings Urban Markets and Living Cities Initiatives Healthy Urban Commun- ities Actionable Knowledge Urban Market Actors Data Reporters Collection Agencies Information Analysts Access Tools • Pilot Projects: Information Innovations to Spur Markets at Local Level • Housing/Transportation Affordability Index • PAID-Using Utility Payments to Bolster Credit Scores • Map/Analysis/Action on Correlates of Neighborhood Decline and Resurgence • Intelligent Middleware to Understand Urban Markets • Dec Support Tools for Urban Real Estate Markets • PPND: Pittsburgh Community Info System • Federal/State Urban Information Policy • NICS: Infrastructure for Community Statistics • Specific data issues of interest to urban markets: • ACS, GMP, LED • Monitor surveys and data collection activities • Scan federal urban data/informationissues UMI Program Areas/Activities

  6. Why: To Understand affordability, its impacts, and potential solutions • Since at least 1984, Housing and Transportation have been the 2 largest household costs– consuming at least 50% of income for the average household

  7. Why: To Understand affordability, its impacts, and potential solutions • The more households spend on housing and transportation, the less they have to spend on: • Savings • Education • Healthcare- preventive and acute • Entertainment • Retail and other goods in the local economy • If we can define the reasons for high neighborhood transportation costs, we can understand: • What to build? • Where to build, and where to live? • Who benefits?

  8. Background and Model Mechanics

  9. What drives H+T Costs? • We know housing costs and what drives them: • Location, location, location; and • Housing size, construction, materials, amenities; and • Fees, taxes • What about transportation costs? ….It’s more than the price at the pump or the price of the car: • Location, location, location; and • Car costs, annual miles, gasoline costs, transit fares • Household size and income But total transportation costs by location are not reported ...until now

  10. Photo Credit: NorthstarTrain.org What about Location? • Transportation costs vary by place, depending on: • Access to services • Walkable destinations • Extent and frequency of transit • Access to jobs • Density • Households who live in “location efficient” neighborhoods—regardless of size and income— • “own fewer vehicles and drive fewer miles, and therefore have lower transportation costs” (Location Efficiency Study. CNT, STPP, NRDC, 2000)

  11. Can be adjusted to current prices, fares, auto types 7 Neighborhood Variables: 1. HHS/residential acre (net density) 2. HHS/total acre (gross density) 3. Avg. block size in acres 4.TransitConnectivity Index 5. Distance to employment centers 6.Jobdensity 7. Access to amenities 2 Household Variables 1. Household income 2. Household size Modeling the “T” of the H&T Index We analyze the Urban Form and the Household Characteristics of neighborhoods to predict the three major components of total household transportation costs. Autos Owned + Auto Use + Transit Use Total Transport Cost x price = /unit

  12. Independent Local Environment Variables – Density Measures Local Environment Variable Autos/Household

  13. Independent Local Environment Variables – Mobility

  14. Independent Local Environment Variables – Mobility

  15. Independent Local Environment Variables – Mobility

  16. Independent Local Environment Variables – Access to Jobs and Amenities

  17. Independent Household Variables Autos/Household Autos/Household

  18. Dependent Variables

  19. Can This… Predict this?

  20. Optimizing the Model • Combining the variables into a model: • Multiple regression modeling to “fit” each of the 3 dependent variables to the 7 independent urban form variables; • Then same modeling is used to “fit” the 2 household variables to the 7 urban independent variables; • for a total of 21 fits to create the pilot model • Model development corroborates with Location Efficiency Study: • The 7 urban form variables, and the two household variables were all needed to optimize the model; • the Urban Form variables are more important than Household variables (in large urban areas)

  21. Seven Urban Form Variables VS. Auto Ownership

  22. Household Variable At 8 HH/Acres auto ownership reduced by 1 car Residual of Auto Ownership Residual of Auto Ownership Controlling for Local Environment Variables Households /Residential acre Median Household Income Model Mechanics • Example of fit for Auto Ownership: Fit of HH Variable Controlling for Local Environment Variables “Fit” Example for an Independent Variable

  23. Considering just housing costs Considering housing and transportation costs Pilot Results: Minneapolis – St. Paul

  24. Modeled by: Neighborhood, Income, and Size,

  25. Applications Proposed Actual to Date

  26. Proposed Users and Uses • Community Groups • Campaigns for transit, community reinvestment, affordable housing, and smart growth • Transportation for Livable Communities, Twin Cities • Red Line Coalition, Roseland Community in Chicago • Business Groups • Common ground for community, government, and business on choices about development, housing, and public investment • Atlanta Quality Growth Task Force • Development and Real Estate Community • New tool for realtors, developers, and bankers to understand, market and capitalize on relative affordability of different neighborhoods • Realtor.com • Support Academic Research • EJ, Effects of Sprawl, Poverty, Economic Development • Temple University Metropolitan Philadelphia Indicators Project

  27. Proposed Users and Uses • Transit Agencies • Estimate benefit or cost to households from service and system changes • Promote transit ridership with savings campaigns • State • “Cost of living” as criteria for state housing & transportation plans, funds • Legislate alignment across jurisdictions to improve cost of living • MPO and County planning • Reduce Transportation Costs as a Goal in long range plans • Target funding programs for TOD, livable communities, etc. • Transportation impacts of fair housing plans, (King County H&CD) • Municipalities • Support changes to ordinances that would better support transit use, and H&T affordability e.g., parking, height, density, inclusionary zoning, etc. • Goal in comprehensive plans

  28. Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District Long Range Mobility Study • Transport costs are lowest in MTD Service Area • Substantial Growth is occurring outside this area DRAFT

  29. Households that live here ….primarily work elsewhere At greater employment densities, households own fewer autos Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District Distance to Employment and Amenities has a strong relationship to auto ownership

  30. Understanding the Model Results DRAFT RESULTS

  31. Denver TOD Strategic Planning • For Mayor’s office and Enterprise • Comparing incomes of residents to transportation costs and proposed new lines • Concerns about gentrification, getting good TOD, development costs

  32. Standard Measures and Criterion: Sewer connections New Jobs Median Incomes Congestion Levels Commute Time Alternative Criterion and Measures: Infrastructure costs/capita Jobs in low T cost areas % of income on H+T Commuters by non-SOV Neighborhood mobility levels Chicago Area Planning Agencies • CNT is advocating for its use by RTA in project selection, CMAP in Framework plan, individual municipalities:

  33. High 18% $55,693 23% $43,718 38% $90,447 Housing Costs 23% $64,744 Low High Transportation Costs Can Households Afford Where they Live? A new way to view regions: High H High H&T Low H&T High T

  34. Working Households: ($20,000 to <$50,000) High H: Pushed (22%) • high housing costs, overcrowding to live near jobs and transit • 48% on H+T High T: Pulled (25%) • pulled toward low housing, away from jobs and best transportation • 60% on H+T Low H&T: Stretched (28%) • high incomes, employment centers, little affordable housing • 59% on H+T High H&T: Left Behind (25%) • fewer jobs, fewer amenities and services • 53% on H+T

  35. Transit Zones & Affordability Index • Proximity to transit without density, services, jobs, and walkability will not alone lower transportation costs

  36. Timeline and Availability

  37. Creating 6 versions of the model by metro “type” Applying new models to 49 metro areas Adjusting prices for autos and gasoline Study on 28 metros for NHC released 10/11/06 Project Timeline Fall 2006 Winter 2006-2007 Spring 2007 • Website available by March 31 • Available on DataPlace.org • Free and fee-based information • Use in studies and plans for regions, cities, advocates • Developing website • Reviewing new results with advisory committee • Operations plan to maintain model and website • Use in studies and plans for regions, cities, advocates

  38. Project Information • Center for Neighborhood Technology • Full white paper on the model and Presentations at www.cnt.org/resources • carrie@cnt.org or 773.269.4093 • Brookings Metropolitan Program, UMI • http://www.brookings.edu/metro/umi.htm • Center for Transit-Oriented Development • http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/html/TOD/index.htm

More Related