Jobs/ Housing Balance: Equity and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Benefits

JOBS/ HOUSING BALANCE: EQUITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION BENEFITS

Research and Analysis from the Center for Neighborhood Technology(CNT) and the California Housing PartnershipNon-Profit Housing Association of Northern California Conference, October 3rd, 2014

California Housing Partnership | 2

Housing Need ReportsCHPC 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


Housing Need in the Bay Area

CountyVLI Renter

Households

Affordable & Available

Rental HomesDeficit of

Rental HomesAlameda County 98,900 38,465 (60,435)Contra Costa County 47,325 18,585 (28,740)Marin County 15,410 5,690 (9,720)Napa County 6,910 2,685 (4,225)San Francisco County 87,470 46,625 (40,845)San Mateo County 36,040 12,265 (23,775)Santa Clara County 91,410 35,755 (55,655)Solano County 17,560 5,615 (11,945)Sonoma County 25,180 7,960 (17,220)Total 426,205 173,645 (252,560)

CHPC Analysis of 2007-2011 HUD CHAS data based on NLIHC Template

Deficit of Homes Serving Very Low Income (VLI) Renters



CHPC Analysis of 2007-2011 HUD CHAS data

County

Severely Rent Burdened VLI

Renter HouseholdsAlameda County 56,840Contra Costa County 27,620Marin County 9,010Napa County 3,820San Francisco County 39,575San Mateo County 19,765Santa Clara County 49,270Solano County 11,685Sonoma County 15,300Total 232,885

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.



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)


Greenhouse Gas Reduction Potential of Locating Housing

Near Jobs and ServicesNew Research on Location Efficiency from the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) and California Housing Partnership


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.


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.


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 CountiesSmall/ Medium Size City: All remaining non-rural households including Santa Rosa, Petaluma, Vallejo, Fairfield, Vacaville, Fresno, Stockton, Monterey, Santa Cruz, Riverside, San Bernardino,


Small/ Medium Size Cities Maps

Major metros shown in blue

Small/ medium size cities shown in brown

Rural areas in yellow


Key Research Questions

1. How close does a home need to be to jobs and essential services to significantly reduce VMT?

2. How big are the VMT differences?


Quantifying Location Efficiency

Tried two ways to quantify VMT impacts, by--

1. Sites of essential services (libraries, banks, schools, grocery stores, etc.), examining distance to CHTS households, and comparing VMT effects.

2. Using employment 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


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.


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.


Major Region VMT by Job Concentration

ELI and VLI households have the greatest elasticity of VMT reduction in relation to increasing job density.

All income groups tend to have lower VMT when living in areas of greater job density and higher transit service.


Small/ Medium Size Cities VMT by Job ConcentrationAll 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.


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

Fresno

Stockton

Salinas

Santa Rosa

Modesto


Rural VMT by Job ConcentrationAll 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.


Key additional finding: Multi-family Housing =

Lower VMTEven 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.


Conclusions1. Locating housing near greater density of jobs is

associated with lower VMT in all regions of the state.2. 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)

3. ELI and VLI households in small cities show greater differences in VMT when living in jobs rich areas than higher income households.

4. Multifamily housing provides heightened VMT reduction benefits.


CONTACTS

California Housing Partnership CorporationJames Pappas

Housing Policy & Preservation [email protected] or 415-433-6804 x 320

Megan KirkebySustainable Housing Policy Manager

[email protected] or 415-433-6804 x 316

mailto:[email protected]



Jobs/ Housing Balance: Equity and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Benefits

Documents

Transcript of Jobs/ Housing Balance: Equity and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Benefits