SSC2011_Scott Bernstein 2011

Helping Places Work for People—New Tools for Measuring & Applying Location Efficiency to Deliver Community

BenefitsScott Bernstein, President

Center for Neighborhood TechnologySolutions for Sustainable Communities, NHC/CHP

September 27, [email protected]

www.cntenergy.orghttp://htaindex.org

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.cnt.org/

http://www.cntenergy.org/

What Is Infrastructure & Why Is It Important

• Shared area-wide assets that provide essential services to a common standard

• Involve tangible networked distribution to neighborhoods and communities

• Generally currently delivered through regional governments or utilities

• Starting to be delivered through distributed networks

• The cost of land + infrastructure == ½ the full cost of delivering the built environment

• Natural gas, electricity, water, sewerage, stormwater, local roads, highways, mass transit, telecommunications and fire/school/police

• $50-$100k/unit + land

Similar Choices Comprise a Vision:

• Bottling Rainstorms and “Treating” Them

• Streets to Maximize Traffic & Speed

• Bypass Communities with Long-Distance Highways & Aviation

• Expand Electric Utility Capacity

• Expand Car Ownership

• Invest to Promote Consumption

Catching Raindrops Where They Fall

Streets to Connect People and What They Do Routinely

Reconnect Communities with Inter-City Rail

Increase Buildings & Community Efficiency

Communities that Come with Local Amenities and Shared Vehicles

Invest to Increase Productivity and Reduce Cost of Living

Requires

• Smart use of existing data sources• New data• Ability to apply in ways that support better

decisions

Purposes

• Review research into the location efficiency of neighborhoods and regions and its application to estimating the combined costs of housing and transportation

• Examine some recent applications: foreclosure research, mortgage lending, counseling, State QAP tax-credit allocation, transit area planning

What Do State and Regional Transportation Goals Say About the Economy? Too often out of synch…

MnDOT Statewide Transportation Plan 2009-2028

• Maintaining infrastructure• Minimize travel time delays

through expanded highways and transitways

• Expand networks for safe biking and walking

• Connect to national high-speed rail network

• Link to cost-competitive high-speed rail network

• Provide access to all persons & businesses w/ no undue burden on one community

• Maintain consistency with State energy & environmental goals

Met Council Regional Development Framework

• Accommodate growth in a flexible, connected & efficient manner

• Slow the growth in traffic congestion while improving mobility

• Encourage expanded choices in housing locations and types

A Century Ago

• Home economics movement taught household budgeting and cost of living reduction

• “Keep your carfare at 3-5 percent of income”

• “Don’t ever go into debt for an automobile”

• Auto companies countered with installment loans and palm cards to help sell

• Home ec was squeezed out by Drivers Ed

• Kids today are taught exactly how to go into debt at age 15

U.S. Household Expenditures

• Housing• Transportation• Both costs are driven in

part by location• High transportation

costs can make seemingly affordable housing unaffordable.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2007; and personal communication as of November 2008.

Sample Performance Measure:What Is Location Efficiency and How Can It Help Address the Perfect Storm of Climate Change and Economic Recession?

How is Location Efficiency Determined- Explain Using Regression?(Memorize This…Or….. )Veh/Hh, VMT/Veh and VMT/Hh in metropolitan San Francisco

2336.0$

000112.03471.0

312.600519.111520.22722.4

2386.1

Tr

H

Pe

RA

HHhVeh P

22136$

01743.00704.0102759.015041.0103860419.0

PPed

H

P

TA

H

Veh

VMT

VMT

Hh

Veh

Hh

VMT

Veh

For the 3 metropolitan areas, the R2 = 79 – 96% for Veh/Hh and 80 – 94% for VMT/Hh.

H/RA is Households/Residential Acres, H/TA is Households/Total Acre, $/P is Income/Capita,P/H is Persons/Hh, Tr is Zonal Transit Density and Ped is Ped/Bicycle Friendliness

Reported in: John Holtzclaw,* Robert Clear, Hank Dittmar, David Goldstein and Peter Haas,Location Efficiency: Neighborhood and Socio-Economic Characteristics Determine Auto Ownershipand Use---Studies in Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco. Transportation Planning and Technology,Vol. 25(1),pp 1-27, March 2002. http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/online/0308-1060.html

Also reported at http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/transportation/holtzclaw-awma.pdf

Peer-reviewed byBrookings and National Academy of Sciences 2008

Easily Visualized Graphically— Location Efficiency: As Density + Transit Choice Increase, VMT Goes Down. Curve Works for 337 US Regions, London, Paris, &and 37 Japanese Cities

Driving vs Residential Density

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

0 50 100 150 200

Households/Residential Acre

An

nu

al V

MT

/Hh

SF

LA

Chicago

Even Easier to See:Mapping the Benefit

• Good transit access yields one less car per household

• Lowers cost of living by $5-8,000

• Equivalent of increasing income 10-20 percent tax free

Driving vs Residential Density

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

0 50 100 150 200

Households/Residential Acre

An

nu

al V

MT

/Hh

SF

LA

Chicago

Another Approach— Indexing Truer Affordability

https://htaindex.orgHow Housing Affordability is Usually Calculated—Then and Now

•Historically: Traced to 19th Century ideal—A Week’s Pay for a Month’s Rent•Today benchmark affordability is defined as housing costs/Income less than or equal to 30 Percent of target population AMI•Problem—Doesn’t include cost of transportation

Transportation Cost Model

Housing + Transportation Costs Vary by Place Across the US

Percentages for working families with incomes between $20k - $50k

Effect of ‘Drive ‘til You Qualify’: Transport Costs Can Exceed Housing Costs for HHs Earning$20-$50,000

• Transportation emissions can also equal or exceed emissions from residential energy

• Creates “driving to green buildings” challenge

% Income

10-15 miles out

Chicago MSA 1999-2008Median Income Grew from $51046 to $61295 Mean Grew from $67768 to $82623

• Growth in median income was $854/month

• Growth in H+T costs was $803

• Left just $51/month for all other expense increases, e.g., food, medical, mortgage resets

• Better in places with more transport choice, worse in the exurbs

<10k10k-15k

15k-25k25k-35k

35k-50k50k-75k

75k-100k100k-150k

150k-200k200k+

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1999

2008

Distribution & Disposition of Household Incomes in the Greater Bay Area 1999 and 2008

• Household income grew $11033 or $920/month

• Housing + Transportation costs grew $917

• Left just $3/month to pay for all other increased expenses: food, medical, mortgage resets

All cohort shares <$100k dropped

Largest decile share wentFrom $50-75k in 1999 to$100-$150k in 2008

http://htaindex.org

http://htaindex.org/

Chicago MSA Mirror Images—Net Net Density 0-347 HH/RA v. 6600 to 30,400 VMT/HH/Year

Mirror Images Again—Net Density 0-347 vs.0.5 – 2.2 Vehicles Per Household

One Click Shows Area of Highest VMT

Another Shows Urban Form or Lack Thereof

Another Shows Area of Lowest VMT

Explaining the “affordability squeeze” in Chicago…

4170/5898 areas are affordable at H<=30% AMI3198/5898 areas are affordable at H+T<=45% AMI388,000 additional households financially stressed

In most efficient areas, cost of living increase from spike kept to 2%, in least efficient areas increased 9%

Similar effects in Metro Portland OR…

Or in Metro Portland Maine

For AMI SF Bay Area Households:1.5/2.6M HHs in 2690/4571 = 59% in H<=30, Drops to1.2/2.6M HHs in 2201/4571 = 48% in H+T<=45

For Households Earning 80% of AMI:Housing-Only Affordability from 5 to 107 w/ Avg. = 40%H+ T Affordability from 18 to 129 w. Avg. =58%

Sample Applications

We Can Use This Knowledge To—

• Protect consumers against “hidden” costs by providing better information

• Analyze trends & compare across HH types• Define housing needs for public policy purposes• Encourage coordination of housing and

transportation policies• Inform sub-Federal planning efforts• Predict the ability of a household to pay rent or

mortgage• Improve financial / housing counseling• Help make the case for and package alternative

financing for accelerated transit system build-out

Index is Being Adopted At Several Levels

• HUD and DOT are using to screen sustainable communities and TIGER grant applications

• MPOs in Bay Area, Chicago, DC and elsewhere using to re-screen, prioritize LRTP investments

• Experimental counseling tools—Phoenix, East Bay, Chicago

• MTC in Bay Area used to justify helping capitalize TOD investment fund

• State of Il. new act requires five agencies to screen investments

• City of El Paso TX now uses to direct affordable housing to areas of low transportation costs

• Portland, others using to help create a typology of TODs that takes affordability and equity into account

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

6/5/

2000

9/5/

2000

12/5

/200

0

3/5/

2001

6/5/

2001

9/5/

2001

12/5

/200

1

3/5/

2002

6/5/

2002

9/5/

2002

12/5

/200

2

3/5/

2003

6/5/

2003

9/5/

2003

12/5

/200

3

3/5/

2004

6/5/

2004

9/5/

2004

12/5

/200

4

3/5/

2005

6/5/

2005

9/5/

2005

12/5

/200

5

3/5/

2006

6/5/

2006

9/5/

2006

12/5

/200

6

3/5/

2007

6/5/

2007

9/5/

2007

12/5

/200

7

3/5/

2008

6/5/

2008

9/5/

2008

12/5

/200

8

3/5/

2009

6/5/

2009

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Jan-

00

Jul-0

0

Jan-

01

Jul-0

1

Jan-

02

Jul-0

2

Jan-

03

Jul-0

3

Jan-

04

Jul-0

4

Jan-

05

Jul-0

5

Jan-

06

Jul-0

6

Jan-

07

Jul-0

7

Jan-

08

Jul-0

8

Jan-

09

Time

Co

un

t o

f F

ore

clo

sure

s

All_Input_month

All_Count

Can Gas Price Spikes Help Provide Early Warning of Defaults and Foreclosures?

The lower the TCI, the greater the number of foreclosed properties by Census Block Group

Foreclosures increase once the average annual VMT per Block Group exceeds 15,000

Ten Years of Foreclosures in Metro Chicago—A Central City + Suburban ProblemHighest in Areas with Large Transportation Cost and Use of Variable Rate Financing.

1998 2008

Analysis of publicfilings by CNT

Foreclosure Rates in Chicago 2000 and 2008Highest in Areas of High T-Cost and Extensive Use of Variable Rate Financing

Count of Bankruptcies in Chicago Metro Area 2007 and 2007-2010 Source: PACER

2007 2007-2010

Location Efficient Mortgage Demo 2000-2005, Idea Was Well Received, No ForeclosuresSeems to Have Outperformed Market

41

H+T Index and Affordable Housing In Illinois, 2001-2008

• 2005 Illinois Comprehensive Housing Plan• 2010 H+T Affordability Act (PA 96-1255) requires 5

agencies (Housing, Transportation, Economic Development, Capital Development, Finance) to take combined costs into account in siting or awarding of support

• Chicago Metropolitan Agency on Planning or CMAP’s Go To 2040 plan, 2010

• National support – Partnership for Sustainable Communities

• Increasing state and local interest

42

What We Examined

• CNT analyzed 248 developments approved by IHDA from 2001-2008 in the Chicago region

• Evaluated whether the Housing Task Force, QAP, comprehensive housing plan and other policies have impacted transportation costs and job access of IHDA-financed developments

• Identified national best practices and opportunities to improve policies and programs

4343

IHDA is leading the way

• 2010 QAP promotes TOD, jobs-housing balance and proximity to services

• IHDA has been a partner in innovative programs like the Regional Housing Initiative and Preservation Compact

• Housing Task Force and linkages working group

But continued improvement is needed to

remain on the cutting edge…

44

We examined distribution of LIHTC-funded developments in metro area

IHDA Production 2001-2004 and 2005-2008

1,255

5,780

2,557

3,543

5,400

6,310

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

City of Chicago Suburban Cook Collar Counties

Location

To

tal

Inco

me

Res

tric

ted

Un

its

2001-2004

2005-2008

Sources: Illinois Housing Development Authority, Center for Neighborhood Technology

45

T Costs in IHDA Developments Outperform the Regional Average

Average Transportation Burdens for 80% AMI Households

21.7%($748 per month)

20.6%($710 per month)

15.0%

16.0%

17.0%

18.0%

19.0%

20.0%

21.0%

22.0%

23.0%

IHDA Average Regional Average

Ave

rag

e T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Bu

rden

Sources: Illinois Housing Development Authority, Center for Neighborhood

Average Monthly Transportation Costs for 80% AMI Housholds in IHDA Developments

$829$797

$587

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

$900

City of Chicago Suburban Cook Collar Counties

Location

Ave

rag

e M

on

thly

T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Co

st


46

But Transportation Costs Rise as Transportation Choice Shrinks

Average Annual Transportation Costs in Neighborhoods with IHDA Developments (80% AMI Household)

$9,393$7,473

$10,423

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

Bus and Train Access Only Bus Access No Bus or Train Access

Transit Access

An

nu

al T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Co

st

$8,520Average Cost in

all IHDA Neighborhoods


47

Used GIS to Determine Rail Transit Access for IHDA Units

Train Access for Units in Chicago

26%

9%

65%

Train Access for Units in the Collar Counties

17%

7%

76%

Train Access for all Units

42% 39%

19%

Less than 1/2 Mile toStation

Less than One Mile toStation

No Train Access


Train Access for Units in Suburban Cook

60% 25%

15%

48

Rail access of newly approved LIHTC-funded units improved between the two periods

Train Access for IHDA LIHTC Units 2001-2004

32%40%

28%

Less than 1/2Mile to Station

Less than OneMile to Station

No Train Access


Train Access for IHDA LIHTC Units 2005-2008

26%

20%

54%


49

Walkable Transit in ¾ of Suburban Units

Walkable Transit Access for the Collar Counties

57%

17%26%

Walkable Transit Access for Suburban Cook

28%15%

57%

Walkable Transit Access for all Units

15%

39%

46%

Less than 1/2 Mile to Station

Bus Route Within 1/4 Mile

No Walkable Transit Access


Three Case Studies

51

Casa Morelos

• Annual T Cost: $7,094• Pilsen Neighborhood• CTA Orange Line, Metra

BNSF• Walkable street network

in compact neighborhood

• Close to bus routes, stores and Pilsen Industrial Corridor

52

Ogden Manor

• Annual T Cost: $8,846• Downtown Naperville• Less than one mile to

Metra BNSF station• Across from high school• ¼ mile to shopping• Job-rich• AHPAA non-exempt

(9.4% affordable)

53

• Annual T cost: $10,233

• Adjacent to Hanover Park Milwaukee District West Station

• Good job access• RTA TOD plan• Few nearby

amenities• Not walkable

West Line Apartments (Prairie Station)

54

Development Name Casa Morelos Ogden Manor Westline Apartments

Location Pilsen Neighborhood Naperville Hanover Park

Family Units 41 24 265

Average Annual Transportation Cost at

80% AMI

$7,094 $8,846 $10,233

Median Income $27,361 $49,798 $48,625

Transit Commute Share 23% 11% 6%

Average Car Ownership 1.0 1.5 2.0

VMT 9,786 13,389 17,686

Transit Connectivity Score 4,468 180 106

Average Block Size (acres) 1.9 5.3 8.2

Jobs earning <$3,333 per month within 10 miles

495,894 107,446 95,861

Jobs earning <$3,333 per month within 5 miles

318,563 47,607 25,062

55

IHDA Recommendations

• Add transportation cost criteria to QAP

• One-click access to Index by property address via Abogo at

• http://abogo.cnt.org

http://abogo.cnt.org/

http://abogo.cnt.org/

56

• Leverage geographic set-asides to better target desirable neighborhood characteristics and reward walkable access to amenities

Recommendations

57

• Improve Live Near Work scoring category with LED data—

• Cooperative federal data venture between Census, BLS and BTS

Recommendations

LA-Southland showing all current Metro, Metrolink, Amtrak lines + proposed Expo, Foothill Extension, Orange Line North BRT, Pettis Valley, SB E St BRT & Wilshire Lines

Existing Stations on Metro (84 stations on 6 lines) & Metrolink (53 stations on 7 lines)

Metro service only—Avg in ½ mile around stations•Avg net density =12.2, High = 38 at Wilshire/Normandie, Low = 2.75 at Douglas/Rosecrans Gr•Avg block size = 8.64 Acres, Low = 1.28 at 5th St. Blue, High = 47.1 at El Segundo/Nash Green•Avg % workers who take PT, Bike, Walk or Work at home =23, High = 63 @ Little Tokyo/Arts,

low = 3 @ Mariposa/Nash Green•Avg Autos/HH = 1.2, Low = 0.36 @ Pershing Sq., High = 2.04 at Aviation Green•Avg % HHs owning Zero or 1 Car = 65, High = 95 @ 7th/Metro Center, Low =32 Orange BRT•Avg T-cost as % Median Income = 17.7, Low = 10.5 @ 7th/Metro Ctr, High = 24 Mariposa/Nash Gr

Metrolink service only—Avg in ½ mile around stations•Avg. net density = 4.5 HH/Res Acre, High = 14.3 in Burbank, Low = 1.28 in Commerce/Orange•Avg. block size = 23.2 Acres, Low = 3.73 in Downtown Pomona, High = 53 in E. Ontario Station•Avg. % Workers Who Take PT, Bike, Walk, or Work at Home = 6.2, High = 51 Oxnard, Low=3 Industry•Avg. Autos/HH=1.6, Low = 1.04 in Sun Valley, High = 2.29 in Industry•Avg % of HHs Owning Zero or 1 car = 48, High = 75 in Sun Valley, Low = 28 in Industry•Avg. T-Cost as % Med Income = 20.1, Low =14.9 in Downtown Pomona, High = 28.5 in Upland

Comparing MTA station areas, Metrolink station areas, and Regional Averages (Unweighted)

MTA Metrolink RegionNet Density 12.2 4.5 4.88Block Size 8.6 23 112Non Drive Workers 23 6.2 12Autos/HH 1.2 1.6 1.7% 0-1 Auto 65 48 45.5T-Cost 17.7 20 21

Thank You!

• [email protected]• www.cnt.org• http://htaindex.org• http://toddata.cnt.org• http://abogo.cnt.org

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.cnt.org/

http://htaindex.org/

http://toddata.cnt.org/

http://abogo.cnt.og/

SSC2011_Scott Bernstein 2011

Business

Transcript of SSC2011_Scott Bernstein 2011