JOBS/ HOUSING BALANCE: EQUITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION BENEFITS Research and Analysis from the...
-
Upload
derrick-jordan -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of JOBS/ HOUSING BALANCE: EQUITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION BENEFITS Research and Analysis from the...
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
California Housing Partnership | 3
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
California Housing Partnership | 4
Housing Need in the Bay Area
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.
California Housing Partnership | 5
Housing Need in the Bay Area
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)
California Housing Partnership | 6
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
California Housing Partnership | 7
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 Housing Partnership | 8
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.
California Housing Partnership | 9
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,
California Housing Partnership | 10
Small/ Medium Size Cities Maps
Major metros shown in blue
Small/ medium size cities shown in brown
Rural areas in yellow
California Housing Partnership | 11
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?
California Housing Partnership | 12
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
California Housing Partnership | 13
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.
California Housing Partnership | 14
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.
California Housing Partnership | 16
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.
California Housing Partnership | 18
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.
California Housing Partnership | 19
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
California Housing Partnership | 21
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.
California Housing Partnership | 22
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.
California Housing Partnership | 23
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.
California Housing Partnership | 24
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