1. Helping Places Work for People—New Tools for Measuring & Applying Location Efficiency to Deliver Community Benefits Scott Bernstein, President Center for Neighborhood Technology Solutions for Sustainable Communities, NHC/CHP September 27, 2011 scott@cnt.org www.cnt.org www.cntenergy.org http://htaindex.org

2. 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

3. 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

4. Requires Smart use of existing data sources New data Ability to apply in ways that support better decisions

5. 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

6. What Do State and Regional Transportation Goals Say About the Economy? Too often out of synch… MnDOT Statewide Transportation Plan 2009-2028 Met Council Regional Development Framework 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 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

7. 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

8. 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.

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

10. How is Location Efficiency Determined- Explain Using Regression?(Memorize This…Or….. ) Peer-reviewed by Brookings and National Academy of Sciences 2008

11. 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

12. 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

14. Today benchmark affordability is defined as housing costs/Income less than or equal to 30 Percent of target population AMI

16. Housing + Transportation Costs Vary by Place Across the US Percentages for working families with incomes between $20k - $50k

17. 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

18. 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

19. Distribution & Disposition of Household Incomes in the Greater Bay Area 1999 and 2008 All cohort shares <$100k dropped Largest decile share went From $50-75k in 1999 to $100-$150k in 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

20. http://htaindex.org

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

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

23. One Click Shows Area of Highest VMT

24. Another Shows Urban Form or Lack Thereof

25. Another Shows Area of Lowest VMT

26. Explaining the “affordability squeeze” in Chicago…

27. 4170/5898 areas are affordable at H<=30% AMI3198/5898 areas are affordable at H+T<=45% AMI388,000 additional households financially stressed

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

29. Similar effects in Metro Portland OR…

30. Or in Metro Portland Maine

31. 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

32. 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%

33. Sample Applications

34. 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

35. 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

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

37. 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

38. 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 public filings by CNT

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

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

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

42. 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 2040plan, 2010 National support – Partnership for Sustainable Communities Increasing state and local interest

43. 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

44. 43 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… 43

45. 44 We examined distribution of LIHTC-funded developments in metro area

46. 45 T Costs in IHDA Developments Outperform the Regional Average

47. But Transportation Costs Rise as Transportation Choice Shrinks 46

48. 47 Used GIS to Determine Rail Transit Access for IHDA Units

49. 48 Rail access of newly approved LIHTC-funded units improved between the two periods

50. 49 Walkable Transit in ¾ of Suburban Units

51. Three Case Studies

52. 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

53. 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)

54. 53 West Line Apartments (Prairie Station) Annual T cost: $10,233 Adjacent to Hanover Park Milwaukee District West Station Good job access RTA TOD plan Few nearby amenities Not walkable

55. 54

56. IHDA Recommendations Add transportation cost criteria to QAP One-click access to Index by property address via Abogo at http://abogo.cnt.org 55

57. 56 Recommendations Leverage geographic set-asides to better target desirable neighborhood characteristics and reward walkable access to amenities

58. Recommendations Improve Live Near Work scoring category with LED data— Cooperative federal data venture between Census, BLS and BTS 57

59. 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

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

62. Avg block size = 8.64 Acres, Low = 1.28 at 5th St. Blue, High = 47.1 at El Segundo/Nash Green

64. Avg % HHs owning Zero or 1 Car = 65, High = 95 @ 7th/Metro Center, Low =32 Orange BRT

66. Avg. block size = 23.2 Acres, Low = 3.73 in Downtown Pomona, High = 53 in E. Ontario Station

67. Avg. % Workers Who Take PT, Bike, Walk, or Work at Home = 6.2, High = 51 Oxnard, Low=3 Industry

68. Avg. Autos/HH=1.6, Low = 1.04 in Sun Valley, High = 2.29 in Industry

69. Avg % of HHs Owning Zero or 1 car = 48, High = 75 in Sun Valley, Low = 28 in Industry

71. Thank You! scott@cnt.org www.cnt.org http://htaindex.org http://toddata.cnt.org http://abogo.cnt.org