922 12 pollack_lunch learn equity

HOW CAN EQUITY IN TOD BE DEFINED AND MEASURED?

Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter

• No consensus definition of equitable TOD, therefore there is no way to distinguish “good” from “not as good” equitable TOD• Metrics needed in order to shape

both approvals and subsidy decisions

• Rating systems exist at project level (e.g. Transform’s GreenTrip) but not at level of the station area• The “best” type of project varies

depending on what is and isn’t available in the station area

Developing a TOD rating system


Why in Massachusetts? VMT data!!


The Dukakis Center’s TOD framework:Focus on people, as well as place


OPTION ONE: TOD & equity sub-scores

Mixed-income housing

Enhanced accessNeighborhood

amenities

Higher ridershipLower VMT

Catalytic TOD

Higher Ridership/Lower VMT

Greater EquityOutcomes

EquitableTOD

TOD Rating

Equity Rating


• For “transit orientation” we know the desired outcome – less driving, more transit use• Analyze factors using daily household Vehicle

Miles Travelled as the “dependent variable”• For “equity orientation” it is more difficult to define a

single desired outcome• One option would be to construct an equity

“scale” • Or, use a less quantitative approach and focus on

factors relevant to equity

But what is the equity “outcome”?


OPTION TWO: One integrated rating system

• Higher ridership• Lower VMT• Catalytic TOD

• Mixed-income housing

• Enhanced access• Neighborhood

amenities

TOD Rating

Equity Rating

Equitable TOD


• The Dukakis Center’s research supports the conclusion that TOD should be oriented toward people most likely to use transit, a group the Center calls “core riders”• For TOD to succeed, transit needs “transit oriented

neighbors”• If both Transit and Development are “oriented” toward

core riders, the resulting TOD should be both high performing and equitable

Equitable TOD = Orienting Transit and Development Toward Core Riders


Who are the “core” users of transit?

• Immigrants • People of color • Zero Vehicle

Households • Renters • Low and Lower

Middle Income Households

Chu, 2012. An Assessment of Public Transportation Markets Using NHTS Data.

Imm

igran

ts

Hispan

ics

Blacks

(non

-Hisp

anic)

Whit

es (n

on-H

ispan

ic)0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

10.6%15.1%

12.1%

67.5%

30.4% 29.0%32.2% 31.3%

Percent of US Population Percent of Transit Market


Core riders: Zero vehicle households

American Community Survey 2005-2009 5-year data, Table S0802

National Boston Minneapolis SF/ Oakland0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

36.0%

26.0%22.4% 21.0%

31.1%36.6%

30.3%33.7%

32.8% 37.4% 47.2% 45.3%

4.3%6.7%

2.8%6.6%

Public Transportation Users Distribution by Vehicle Ownership

2+ vehicles available

1 vehicle available

No vehicle available

MSA No vehicle available


Core riders: Renters

American Community Survey 2005-2009 5-year data, Table S0802

National Boston Minneapolis SF/ Oakland0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

29.8% 30.8%

21.7%

41.1%

58.6%54.9%

45.7%

58.1%

Percent Renters

MSA Average Public Transportation Average


Residential density and

average daily VMT have a very

strong curvilinear relationship.

At a certain threshold

(approximately 10 households

per acre), driving drops

dramatically. There is very little

variation along the curve,

suggesting that density is one

of the strongest predictors of

VMT that we analyzed.

Relationship of residential density and VMT


The relationship

between percentage or

renters and average

daily VMT is generally

strongly negative: the

higher the proportion of

renters, the lower the

average daily household

VMT.

Relationship of proportion of renters and VMT

Average Daily

VMT

per Household

Percentage of renters

The eTOD Score rating system


TransitAvailability, quality, connectivity, and use of public transit

OrientationDemographic and socioeconomic orientation toward transit usage

DevelopmentPresence of existing transit-oriented development with higher densities and mix of uses

Components of eTOD Score


First Dimension: Transit

Metric Measure

Transit

Transit Accessibility

Transit Access Shed Index (TAS)

Transit Connectivity

Transit Connectivity Index (TCI)

Transit UsePercentage of workers who use transit, bike, or walk to work


Second Dimension: Oriented

Metric Measure

Orientation

Transit Dependency

Percentage of 0-car households

Lower IncomePercent households with income <$25,000

Rental Housing Percentage renters

AffordabilityPercent of income spent on transportation


Third Dimension: Development

Metric Measure

Development

Walkability WalkScore®

Residential Density

Households per residential acre

Employment Gravity

Employment gravity measure


Final list of eTOD Score attributes


eTOD Score Ranges

eTOD Score RangeMean VMT per day

per householdDescription

41+ 21.3 Transit-Oriented

31-40 27.6 Transit-Supportive

21-30 36.5 Transit-Related

0-20 58.5 Transit-Adjacent


eTOD Score examples


Using eTOD Score

As a “think and do” tank, the Kitty and Michael Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy is equally committed to producing state-of-the-art applied research and implementing effective policies and practices based on that research. The Center’s collaborative research and problem-solving model uses powerful data analysis, multidisciplinary research and evaluation techniques and a policy-driven perspective to address critical challenges facing urban areas.

A region’s economy and livability depend on the ability of the transportation system to provide access to opportunity, support economic growth and anchor sustainable development patterns. The Dukakis Center's work on Researching Equitable and Sustainable Transportation (ReSET) focuses on transportation equity, sustainable transportation, equitable transit-oriented development and transportation finance.

Policy Focus Areas:

• Transportation

• Economic Development

• Housing

• Labor/Workforce

Northeastern UniversityDukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy

Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional PolicyNortheastern University310 Renaissance Park360 Huntington AvenueBoston, MA 02115(617) 373-7870www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenterA “Think and Do” Tank



922 12 pollack_lunch learn equity

Presentations & Public Speaking

Transcript of 922 12 pollack_lunch learn equity