Search

Search Results

• 1. [Article] How Affordable is HUD Affordable Housing?

  This paper assesses the affordability of HUD rental assistance properties from the standpoint of transportation costs. HUD housing is, by definition, affordable from the standpoint of housing costs due ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: How Affordable is HUD Affordable Housing? Author: Ewing, Reid, Hamidi, Shima Year: 2015 This paper assesses the affordability of HUD rental assistance properties from the standpoint of transportation costs. HUD housing is, by definition, affordable from the standpoint of housing costs due to limits on the amounts renters are required to pay. However, there are no such limitations on transportation costs, and common sense suggests that renters in remote locations may be forced to pay more than 15 percent of income, a nominal affordability standard, for transportation costs. Using household travel models estimated with data from 15 diverse regions around the U.S., we estimated and summed automobile capital costs, automobile operating costs, and transit fare costs for households at more than 18,000 HUD rental assistance properties. The mean percentage of income expended on transportation is 15 percent for households at the high end of the eligible income scale. However, in highly sprawling metropolitan areas, and in suburban areas of more compact metropolitan areas, much higher percentages of households exceed the 15 percent threshold. This suggests that locational characteristics of properties should be considered by HUD when establishing eligibility for rental assistance subsidies. Title: How Affordable is HUD Affordable Housing? Author: Ewing, Reid, Hamidi, Shima Year: 2015 This paper assesses the affordability of HUD rental assistance properties from the standpoint of transportation costs. HUD housing is, by definition, affordable from the standpoint of housing costs due to limits on the amounts renters are required to pay. However, there are no such limitations on transportation costs, and common sense suggests that renters in remote locations may be forced to pay more than 15 percent of income, a nominal affordability standard, for transportation costs. Using household travel models estimated with data from 15 diverse regions around the U.S., we estimated and summed automobile capital costs, automobile operating costs, and transit fare costs for households at more than 18,000 HUD rental assistance properties. The mean percentage of income expended on transportation is 15 percent for households at the high end of the eligible income scale. However, in highly sprawling metropolitan areas, and in suburban areas of more compact metropolitan areas, much higher percentages of households exceed the 15 percent threshold. This suggests that locational characteristics of properties should be considered by HUD when establishing eligibility for rental assistance subsidies. Close

• 2. [Article] How Does Transportation Affordability Vary Among TODs, TADs, and Other Areas?

  Transit-oriented development (TOD) has gained popularity worldwide as a sustainable form of urbanism; it concentrates development near a transit station so as to reduce auto-dependency and increase ridership. ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: How Does Transportation Affordability Vary Among TODs, TADs, and Other Areas? Author: Scheer, Brenda, Ewing, Reid, Park, Keunhyun, Khan, Shabnam Sifat Ara Year: 2017 Transit-oriented development (TOD) has gained popularity worldwide as a sustainable form of urbanism; it concentrates development near a transit station so as to reduce auto-dependency and increase ridership. Existing travel behavior studies in the context of TOD, however, are limited in terms of small sample size, inconsistent TOD classification methods, and failure to control for residential self-selection. Thus, this study has three research questions. First, how can we distinguish between Transit-oriented development (TOD) and Transit-adjacent development (TAD)? Second, how do travel behaviors vary between TODs and TADs? Third, how does transportation affordability vary between TODs and TADs? This study utilizes cluster analysis to classify station area types and propensity score matching to control residential self-selection. From cluster analysis with built-environment factors—density, diversity, and walkability—in a half-mile buffer, this study classifies existing station areas as TOD, TAD or Hybrid types. After controlling for residential self-selection, it shows that a TOD motivates its residents to walk more and take transit more while using personal vehicles less. The significant difference between TOD and TAD in both VMT and the number of auto trips demonstrates that TODs make the personal vehicle trips shorter and fewer. Travel behavior in the Hybrid type demonstrates the possibility of gradual and practical change. Finally, the percentage of household income spent on transportation is lower in TOD households than TAD households. This shows that a TOD household is likely to save enough money on vehicle ownership and use that, while it likely spends more on transit, the final result is a significantly lower financial burden from transportation. Title: How Does Transportation Affordability Vary Among TODs, TADs, and Other Areas? Author: Scheer, Brenda, Ewing, Reid, Park, Keunhyun, Khan, Shabnam Sifat Ara Year: 2017 Transit-oriented development (TOD) has gained popularity worldwide as a sustainable form of urbanism; it concentrates development near a transit station so as to reduce auto-dependency and increase ridership. Existing travel behavior studies in the context of TOD, however, are limited in terms of small sample size, inconsistent TOD classification methods, and failure to control for residential self-selection. Thus, this study has three research questions. First, how can we distinguish between Transit-oriented development (TOD) and Transit-adjacent development (TAD)? Second, how do travel behaviors vary between TODs and TADs? Third, how does transportation affordability vary between TODs and TADs? This study utilizes cluster analysis to classify station area types and propensity score matching to control residential self-selection. From cluster analysis with built-environment factors—density, diversity, and walkability—in a half-mile buffer, this study classifies existing station areas as TOD, TAD or Hybrid types. After controlling for residential self-selection, it shows that a TOD motivates its residents to walk more and take transit more while using personal vehicles less. The significant difference between TOD and TAD in both VMT and the number of auto trips demonstrates that TODs make the personal vehicle trips shorter and fewer. Travel behavior in the Hybrid type demonstrates the possibility of gradual and practical change. Finally, the percentage of household income spent on transportation is lower in TOD households than TAD households. This shows that a TOD household is likely to save enough money on vehicle ownership and use that, while it likely spends more on transit, the final result is a significantly lower financial burden from transportation. Close

• 3. [Article] Do TODs Make a Difference?

  In this report, we present research that measures the outcomes of TOD areas in relation to their metropolitan area controls with respect to (1) jobs by sector; (2) housing choice for household types based ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Do TODs Make a Difference? Author: Nelson, Arthur C., Miller, Matt, Eskic, Dejan, Kim, Keuntae, Ewing, Reid, Liu, Jenny H., Berggren, Matt, Mumuni, Zakari Year: 2015 In this report, we present research that measures the outcomes of TOD areas in relation to their metropolitan area controls with respect to (1) jobs by sector; (2) housing choice for household types based on key demographic characteristics; (3) housing affordability based on transportation costs; and (4) job-worker balance as a measure of accessibility. Prior literature has not systematically evaluated TOD outcomes in these respects with respect to light rail transit (LRT), commuter rail transit (CRT), bus rapid transit (BRT), and streetcar transit (SCT) systems. Our analysis helps close some of these gaps. We apply our analysis to 23 fixed-guideway transit systems operating in 17 metropolitan areas in the South and West that have one or more of those systems. We find: (1) Most TOD areas gained jobs in the office, knowledge, education, health care and entertainment sectors, adding more than $100 billion in wages capitalized over time; (2) In assessing economic resilience associated with LRT systems, jobs continued to shift away from TOD areas before the Great Recession, the pace slowed during the recession but reversed during recovery, leading us to speculate that LRT TOD areas may have transformed metropolitan economies served by LRT systems; (3) Rents for offices, retail stores and apartments were higher when closer to SCT systems, had mixed results with respect LRT systems, but were mostly lower with respect to CRT systems (our BRT sample was too small to evaluate); (4) SCT systems performed best in terms of increasing their TOD-area shares of metropolitan population, households and householders by age, housing units, and renters with BRT systems performing less well while LRT and CRT systems experienced a much smaller shift in the share of growth; (5) Household transportation costs as a share of budgets increase with respect to distance from LRT transit stations to seven miles, suggesting the proximity to LRT stations reduces total household transportation costs; (6) Emerging trends that may favor higher-wage jobs locating in TOD areas over time than lower- or middle-wage jobs, perhaps because TOD areas attract more investment which requires more productive, higher-paid labor to justify the investment; and (7) The share of workers who commute 10 minutes or less to work increases nearly one-half of 1 percent for each half-mile their resident block group is to an LRT transit station, capping at a gain of 1.3 percent, which is not a trivial gain. Our report summarizes case studies of 23 transit systems and three journal articles based on our research. Title: Do TODs Make a Difference? Author: Nelson, Arthur C., Miller, Matt, Eskic, Dejan, Kim, Keuntae, Ewing, Reid, Liu, Jenny H., Berggren, Matt, Mumuni, Zakari Year: 2015 In this report, we present research that measures the outcomes of TOD areas in relation to their metropolitan area controls with respect to (1) jobs by sector; (2) housing choice for household types based on key demographic characteristics; (3) housing affordability based on transportation costs; and (4) job-worker balance as a measure of accessibility. Prior literature has not systematically evaluated TOD outcomes in these respects with respect to light rail transit (LRT), commuter rail transit (CRT), bus rapid transit (BRT), and streetcar transit (SCT) systems. Our analysis helps close some of these gaps. We apply our analysis to 23 fixed-guideway transit systems operating in 17 metropolitan areas in the South and West that have one or more of those systems. We find: (1) Most TOD areas gained jobs in the office, knowledge, education, health care and entertainment sectors, adding more than $100 billion in wages capitalized over time; (2) In assessing economic resilience associated with LRT systems, jobs continued to shift away from TOD areas before the Great Recession, the pace slowed during the recession but reversed during recovery, leading us to speculate that LRT TOD areas may have transformed metropolitan economies served by LRT systems; (3) Rents for offices, retail stores and apartments were higher when closer to SCT systems, had mixed results with respect LRT systems, but were mostly lower with respect to CRT systems (our BRT sample was too small to evaluate); (4) SCT systems performed best in terms of increasing their TOD-area shares of metropolitan population, households and householders by age, housing units, and renters with BRT systems performing less well while LRT and CRT systems experienced a much smaller shift in the share of growth; (5) Household transportation costs as a share of budgets increase with respect to distance from LRT transit stations to seven miles, suggesting the proximity to LRT stations reduces total household transportation costs; (6) Emerging trends that may favor higher-wage jobs locating in TOD areas over time than lower- or middle-wage jobs, perhaps because TOD areas attract more investment which requires more productive, higher-paid labor to justify the investment; and (7) The share of workers who commute 10 minutes or less to work increases nearly one-half of 1 percent for each half-mile their resident block group is to an LRT transit station, capping at a gain of 1.3 percent, which is not a trivial gain. Our report summarizes case studies of 23 transit systems and three journal articles based on our research. Close