Transcript Jobs/Housing Balance: Equity and Greenhouse Gas Reduction

JOBS/ HOUSING BALANCE: EQUITY AND
GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION BENEFITS
Research and Analysis from the Center for Neighborhood
Technology(CNT) and the California Housing Partnership
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
Conference, October 3rd, 2014
Housing Need Reports
CHPC 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 | 2
Housing Need in the Bay Area
Deficit of Homes Serving Very Low Income (VLI) Renters
County
Alameda County
Contra Costa County
Marin County
Napa County
San Francisco County
San Mateo County
Santa Clara County
Solano County
Sonoma County
Total
Affordable &
VLI Renter
Available
Deficit of
Households Rental Homes Rental Homes
98,900
38,465
(60,435)
47,325
18,585
(28,740)
15,410
5,690
(9,720)
6,910
2,685
(4,225)
87,470
46,625
(40,845)
36,040
12,265
(23,775)
91,410
35,755
(55,655)
17,560
5,615
(11,945)
25,180
7,960
(17,220)
426,205
173,645
(252,560)
CHPC Analysis of 2007-2011 HUD CHAS data based on NLIHC Template
California Housing Partnership | 3
Housing Need in the Bay Area
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.
County
Alameda County
Contra Costa County
Marin County
Napa County
San Francisco County
San Mateo County
Santa Clara County
Solano County
Sonoma County
Total
Severely Rent
Burdened VLI
Renter Households
56,840
27,620
9,010
3,820
39,575
19,765
49,270
11,685
15,300
232,885
CHPC Analysis of 2007-2011 HUD CHAS data
California Housing Partnership | 4
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 | 5
Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Potential of Locating Housing
Near Jobs and Services
New Research on Location Efficiency from the
Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT)
and California Housing Partnership
California Housing Partnership | 6
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 | 7
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 24hour period. Surveys were conducted every
day of the year.
California Housing Partnership | 8
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 Counties
Small/ 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 | 9
Small/ Medium Size Cities Maps
Major metros shown in
blue
Small/ medium size
cities shown in brown
Rural areas in yellow
California Housing Partnership | 10
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 | 11
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 | 12
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 | 13
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 | 14
Major Region VMT by Job Concentration
All income groups tend to have lower VMT when living
in areas of greater job density and higher transit
service.
ELI and VLI
households have
the greatest
elasticity of VMT
reduction in relation
to increasing job
density.
California Housing Partnership | 16
Small/ Medium Size Cities VMT
by Job Concentration
All 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 | 18
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
Santa Rosa
Many small to medium size cities
throughout the state have areas
where households are close to
denser concentrations of jobs
Stockton
Modesto
Fresno
Salinas
California Housing Partnership | 19
Rural VMT by Job Concentration
All 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 | 21
Key additional finding: Multifamily Housing = Lower VMT
Even 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 | 22
Conclusions
1. 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 | 23
CONTACTS
California Housing Partnership Corporation
James Pappas
Housing Policy & Preservation Associate
[email protected] or 415-433-6804 x 320
Megan Kirkeby
Sustainable Housing Policy Manager
[email protected] or 415-433-6804 x 316
24