<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Research in Progress (RIP)</title>
    <link>https://rip.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://rip.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=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" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>Reconnecting in Housing Coordination Opportunity</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2521602</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This research effort will create a series of practitioner-oriented tools and materials to help metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) develop housing coordination plans, recently enabled under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). This project also helps MPOs use this new tool to better integrate transportation planning into other federally required planning processes required by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Economic Development Administration (EDA). As a result of this research, MPOs and their partner organizations will be able to utilize housing coordination plans to reconnect housing and jobs within communities, reduce spatial mismatch and segregation, and lower the combined cost of housing and transportation. ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2025 13:37:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2521602</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Evaluating Housing Dissonance and the Potential for Smart Growth in Rural America</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2495006</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The potential to adopt more sustainable travel behavior and the ability to meet travel needs in small and rural communities is strongly linked with land use. Some evidence points to a large unmet demand in rural US areas for more compact and mixed-use development that could help create more livable and sustainable communities. This project involves a national study to evaluate the types of communities where people in rural areas currently live and how those align with their preferences. This project will focus on understanding neighborhood-level attributes and transportation factors that explain housing location preferences and provide insights into the potential for land-use strategies to address rural transportation needs while reducing emissions.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2025 16:35:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2495006</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Exceptional Densification and Resulting Mode Shifts in the US and Canada</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2459125</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Planners in the United States and Canada should stop defending single-family zoning, the single most harmful widely used practice in planning. In the century since first adoption, it has exacerbated both inequality and climate change. Land use regulations that make a singly occupied, detached house on a large parcel the only allowable option should be replaced, wherever they exist, with new rules that allow medium-density, or “Missing Middle,” housing to be built by right. These changes should be applied broadly at the scale of an entire city or, best of all, a state, rather than piecemeal. Encouraging recent events in Minneapolis (MN), Oregon, and elsewhere show that single-family zoning is being seriously challenged for the first time, but more progress is needed.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Dec 2024 19:31:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2459125</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Investigating the Evolution of Residential Self-Selection in the Post-COVID Era: The Transition to Digital Lifestyles and Changing Travel Behaviors</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2437976</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a profound transformation in individuals’ residential location choices and travel patterns. Traditional determinants of where to live, such as housing affordability or proximity to work/amenities, now closely intersect with the convenience of remote work and other online activities. This transition reshapes how individuals choose their living environment and organize their travel during the day. To navigate this evolving landscape, this research will delve into the residential self-selection in the post-COVID era. Central to the researchers’ investigation is understanding individuals’ shifting tendencies towards digital nomadism and the impact of this transition on housing preferences and activity-travel behavior. The researchers seek to uncover to what extent factors like the convenience of remote activities, hybrid work schedules, and tech-savviness influence residential and travel choices. Furthermore, the researchers will explore the equity considerations inherent in these decisions, examining how sociodemographics intersect with the evolving structure of residential self-selection. To achieve these objectives, the researchers will employ a targeted sampling methodology to recruit individuals who have relocated over the last 12 months, as well as those who have not moved since the start of the pandemic in March 2020. Through the analysis of this dataset that consists of movers and non-movers, the researchers will have the opportunity to (1) track the factors impacting relocation decisions and those influencing residential stability, (2) explore the effects of the remote activities both on residential and travel choices, and (3) assess the differences in remote activity participation and residential location choice across various population segments. These findings will not only inform planning and policy decisions but also set a baseline for future studies focusing on the interplay between residential self-selection, digital lifestyles, and housing preferences. ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Oct 2024 16:11:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2437976</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re-examining TOCs through the Lens of Differential Responsibilities: Role of Street Network Structure on Effective Availability</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2420104</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Recent literature suggests that households in transit-oriented developments (TODs) spend less on the combined cost of housing and transportation (Zhou & Zolnik 2013, Dong 2021). Other research suggests that TOD residents engage in more physical activity due to the built environment factors than people living in other areas (e.g., suburbs) (Langlois et. al. 2016, Appleyard et al. 2019). 
In this research project, we start by asking the question what it means for a TOD to be effective and available for people of all abilities. We will then investigate and quantify the relationship between the street network structure and different users’ ease of access to destinations in a variety of built environment combinations. We will consider a variety of destinations related to educational facilities, healthy food, health care facilities, and job opportunities. Instead of assuming an average user and commuting trip purpose, we will examine availability of transit through the lens of users with different abilities and travel needs. This approach is based on the hypothesis that person-level attributes strongly affect real availability of transit and the lack of available research on this topic. For example, even when seemingly adequate transit is available, some users may avoid transit at night if the bus stop or the first/last mile travel does not feel safe (Chowdhury and Van Wee, 2020). The reason for including trip purpose is that our previous research has shown that people value trips differently depending on the purpose. In other words, people might be unwilling to take transit with certain trips such as a medical appointment due to concerns over reliability.
We propose to adopt the framework and protocols suggested by Ewing et al. in their article ‘Identifying and Measuring Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability’ (2006). We will use a similar framework for measuring transit availability for a sample of stops within a few selected Regional Transit District (RTD) bus and train routes. The transit stops will be selected based on propensity score matching of neighborhoods on certain qualities like tree cover, number of schools, employment and residential density etc. to understand their impact on ridership. Routes will be selected based on whether they lie on or in close connectivity to the proposed BRT corridors in the Denver Metro so that preemptive policies and measures can be designed to support and boost ridership post launch of the BRT services. 
The proposed project is also tied to a transit design class that will be offered at CU Denver in Fall 2024. Through projects, students will get hands-on experience of identifying urban design elements that support and promote universal availability of transit to reach desired destinations.
The outputs will include: 1) At least one conference paper to be submitted to Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting 2) At least two peer reviewed journal publications 3) An open source map of the accessibility metric for the routes and stops so that users can change different parameters of the metric and visualize the change in outcome and 4) Design project reports with recommendations from the class which will be hosted on the class website in the future.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Aug 2024 15:00:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2420104</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Formation along Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Lines: Database Development, Analysis, and Identification of High-Impact Policy, Design, and Service Characteristics</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2420213</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Transit agencies across the U.S. are currently investing in the development of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) as an alternative to light rail that promises many of the same benefits of long-term investment in high-quality transit service but can be implemented more quickly and at lower cost. While most scholarship and research surrounding Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) and its benefits has focused on TODs around subway and light rail stations, the increased prevalence and success of BRT calls for further exploration of the current state of and future potential for TOD along these lines. Moreover, projects identified as BRT can vary widely in terms of design, service quality, and associated land use policy and regulations, resulting in inconsistent outcomes which may fail to fulfill expectations of local officials and communities. This study aims to investigate how these variables impact project “success,” in terms of both ridership and development impacts, as well as to compare differences between bus- and rail-based initiatives to promote transit-oriented development and communities. The production of a peer-reviewed analysis and study (in addition to a policy brief and report) will be supported by the development of a comprehensive database of BRT-based TOD in the U.S. Previous work has been undertaken by Reid Ewing and others in developing a database of TOD at rail-based transit stations in the U.S. but has not yet incorporated BRT-based developments. The development of a similar database for BRT based TOD, including collection of sociodemographic and land use data for adjacent and surrounding areas, will be crucial in facilitating future analysis of these site’s potentials, successes, and challenges in terms of affecting meaningful change in land use, community health and livability. The proposed project will present initial quantitative analyses of these data in conjunction with case studies and other forms of qualitative analysis to provide scholars and planners with a necessary assessment of the current state of and future potential for TOD along the nation’s growing networks of BRT. As part of the project the team will identify all income-restricted housing units in the identified BRT-TODs and will compile a list of mechanisms that were used to build these units (i.e. inclusionary housing zoning/policies, LIHTC, density bonuses, tax incentives). The project also aims to apply the findings of this analysis to practice. Local officials, planners, and developers in LA and beyond report perceptions of BRT as a less effective driver of land use change and economic development or are unsure how to capture its potential benefits to achieve local policy goals such as expansion of affordable housing, capturing and reinvesting increased property values, and encouraging modal shift. Managing expectations in the context of an unstable real estate market – and implementing regulatory tools and incentives to encourage specific outcomes desired by communities – is identified as a challenge with important implications for smaller, low-growth, high-need cities and regions. Through a national review of practice, projects, and outcomes related to BRT, as well as active collaboration with local government and transit agencies in LA, we will seek to identify specific policy, design, and service variables that are associated with positive impacts to transit ridership, economic development, and other local goals and which can be expected to facilitate successful BRT implementation. Outputs will include 1) the BRT TOD database 2) final summary/technical report 3) a webinar summarizing research findings 4) 2 stakeholder presentations 5) stakeholder guide to BRT TOD success 6) 2 local BRT TOD/TOC implementation plans 7) one or more academic journal articles 8) the first formal collaboration between CETOC and LA’s largest transit agencies (RTA and CATS), expected to provide expanded access to data and decision-makers, providing a living lab for future research while developing data-driven, practical resources for implementation.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Aug 2024 14:45:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2420213</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>What makes affordable housing affordable: mechanisms used to produce affordable housing near transit in the US</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2420215</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In our previous research on housing affordability near transit we identified categories/types of mechanisms that were used to stimulate the production of affordable housing. We categorized them as either top-down (inclusionary zoning/housing policies and ordinance, state laws, county and state level regulations and programs, etc.) or bottom-up (tax credit policies and programs, private-public partnerships, transit operators’ policies, fee waivers/abatement, public funding, private non-profit developers and CDCs, etc,) mechanisms based on how they were initiated. For this study, we propose to develop a more detailed description of each mechanism, provide successful examples (case studies) and estimate a level of affordability associated with each. In addition, we would like to search for other mechanisms that have been used to produce affordable housing but are not yet included in our list. We would also like to investigate which mechanisms are used in which state/region to look for tendencies and patterns. As part of our initial study, we identified all TODs in the country (that meet a set of eight criteria). To do so, we contacted metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), transit operators, and major cities in all (26) regions with at least two rail lines and asked each of them for a list of potential TODs. We received a list of 214 potential TODs. Half of them (107) met our eight criteria: (1) adjacent or nearly adjacent to BRT stations (maximum one block away), (2) dense and multistory, (3) mixed-use with residential and commercial (potentially including office uses), pedestrian-friendly with public space, (4) Built after BRT opened, (5) largely built out, (6) have their own parking facilities (i.e., self-contained parking), (7) master-planned or consist of buildings gathered in a cluster near transit station (not a single building). For this project, we will review the other 107 TODs (that did not meet our criteria but were characterized as TODs by MPOs, cities and transit agencies) to identify additional mechanisms used to produce affordable housing that have not yet been included in our list. To develop detailed descriptions and case studies for each, we will conduct interviews with selected TOD projects/developers/cities, and we will conduct a comprehensive document review. We will also investigate the level of affordability achieved by using each mechanism. For instance, projects developed by non-profit developers (i.e. BRIDGE Housing, Carlisle Development) or Community Development Corporations (i.e. East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation, New Brunswick Development Corporation) are usually 100-percent affordable – all units are deed-restricted and affordable to households earning less than 80% of AMI and most often even less than 60% of AMI. In contrast, projects that are subject to inclusionary zoning policies usually offer no more than 5-10% of their units as affordable as many developers choose a payment in-lieu option. We will also examine to what extent each type of strategies/ tactics/ policies (i.e. LIHTC, non-profit developers or CDCs, inclusionary housing zoning, density incentives, etc.) contributes to the overall pool of designated affordable housing (DAH) units in TODs. From the initial study we learned that 43% of designated affordable units located in the 107 TODs examined were built using some sort of tax incentive, another 31 % were built by non-profit developers and CDCs, and the remaining 26% used one of the other mechanisms. Lastly, we will also investigate how the use of various mechanisms varies from state to state and across regions. Outputs will include 1) Local and national conference presentations 2) One or more peer-reviewed publications 3) A toolkit (“How to build more Affordable Housing in TODs – a toolkit of strategies for every place”) that will be electronically distributed to planners, developers, and other interested parties.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Aug 2024 14:43:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2420215</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Evaluation Methods for Ohio's Post-World War II (WWII) Residential Properties 
</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2353863</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) is required to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act in the identification and evaluation of post-World War II houses with eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places. Since properties 50 years old and older must be evaluated for National Register eligibility, the vast number and ubiquitous nature of postwar housing presents a major challenge to ODOT. It affects project planning and identification and evaluation efforts, potentially causing a major impact on project schedules and budgets. This project would allow ODOT-OES to develop a consistent method for identifying when postwar residential properties require further consideration for the National Register and when postwar residential properties can be processed without further review. Being able to apply a framework for identifying and evaluating postwar residences, will save the department money and time by shortening survey and write-up times, streamlining coordination, expediting project reviews, and better managing impacts to postwar properties that truly are eligible for the National Register. The objectives of this research are to develop an Ohio specific methodology for identifying and evaluating post WWII residences for eligibility on the NRHP that is efficient, cost-effective, reliable, and repeatable and to also create a step-by-step guide for prequalified personnel to use during eligibility determination. The goal of this research is to support the effort to streamline ODOT's compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. 
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2024 08:39:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2353863</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RES2021-08: Evaluating Transit Equity and Accessibility to Affordable Housing in TN</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2338580</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Over the last decade, urban areas throughout the country have experienced significant economic growth and gentrification, including those in Tennessee. With increasing gentrification and higher housing prices, some low-income households have had to make trade-offs between housing affordability and transit accessibility. This is because transit services tend to be more frequent and widespread in downtown areas where the housing prices are normally higher than in suburban areas. Thus, this report aims to critically assess the interrelated issues of transit access to jobs, affordable housing locations, and displaced populations in the major metropolitan regions of Tennessee. Transit accessibility to jobs from affordable housing units were measured using an accessibility software from Conveyal. Next, affordable housing locations that have limited transit access to jobs were identified, and potential modifications to transit service that could increase access were proposed. Then, maps were created to visualize the spatial distribution of displaced low-income households, which revealed that, on average from 2010 to 2019, Davidson County lost the greatest number of low-income households and had the highest displacement rate among the four counties, followed in order by Knox, Shelby, and finally Hamilton County. Lastly, maps that compared affordable housing locations, the transit network, and displacement suggested that the relationship between transit accessibility, affordable housing, and displacement differed across the four metropolitan regions. In general, transit accessibility and housing affordability are important to reduce or prevent the displacement of low-income households. Therefore, it is important for transit agencies and housing authorities to consider policies and practices that facilitate coordination of transit planning and affordable housing development in the future.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2024 14:27:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2338580</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Is Transit-Oriented Development Affordable for Low- and Moderate-income Households
(in Terms of Housing and Transportation)?</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2292743</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Transit-Oriented Development Institute defines transit-oriented development (TOD) as
“compact, walkable, pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use communities centered around highquality
train systems.” The Metropolitan Transportation Commission of the Bay Area defines
a transit-oriented community (TOC) as: “Transit-oriented communities (TOCs) enable
people to access and use transit more often for more types of trips by centering housing, jobs,
services, and shopping around public transit. They are places where people of all ages,
abilities, income levels, and racial and ethnic backgrounds can live, work, and thrive.”
Stantec combines the two: “Anchored by public transportation, transit-oriented development
(TOD) is a key component to supporting compact, walkable, healthier communities which
contribute to greater quality of life for residents. But what happens when development is
centered around people? We get transit-oriented communities (TOC).” We found only one
place on the internet where TOD and TOC were explicitly distinguished from one another,
and it isn’t very helpful: “TOD is a forest of towers beside a transit station,” says Matti
Siemiatycki, a professor with Toronto Metropolitan University's School of Cities. “TOC is
exceptional places that people want to spend time in.” Siemiatycki says the difference can be
boiled down to three ingredients: density, diversity, and design.” (In reality, very few of the
TODs look anything like ‘a forest of towers beside a transit station’. And if they do, they are
2
located in places that in general look like ‘forest of towers’ – New York City’s Hudson Yards
or Boston’s North Station.
So we are left to make the distinction ourselves. TODs by standard definition are dense,
mixed use, pedestrian-oriented developments and redevelopments centered around and in
close proximity to transit stations. They are the epidemy of the D variables, density, land use
diversity, pedestrian-oriented design, and short distance to transit. They constitute the core of
TOCs, which extend beyond walking distances of transit stations, are often less dense,
mixed, and pedestrian-friendly than the TODs at their cores, and thus generate fewer transit
trips.
Take Vineyard TOD and TOC in our home urbanized area of Salt Lake City, located in Utah
County. The development area right around the FrontRunner Station is designated a TOD.
This extends about one quarter mile from the station. The rest of the Vineyard Town Center
is further from the station and less dense and mixed in terms of its land uses. By some
definition, the whole thing might constitute a TOC. Whatever definition one uses, TOCs are
made up of TODs and other land uses such as single-family neighborhoods that benefit in
some sense from proximity to transit, perhaps accessed in a first mile, last mile (FMLM)
sense via walking, bikes, park-and-ride, e-scooters, and other forms of micromobility.
CETOC, as the name implies, is taking the broader view of transit-orientation as a


community scaled phenomenon. In the many subsequent years of CETOC funding and
research, CETOC projects may want to look at the impacts of transit stations on areas outside
the immediate station areas or TODs since these areas are often well-served by other modes,
including feeder buses. But at the heart of the whole discussion of TOCs, in regions other
than those with the legacy rail systems such as New York and Chicago (that, arguably, are
entire TOCs in their own right), are TODs. And from our research on TODs in 10 regions, at
the heart of TODs are development and redevelopment projects in very close proximity to
rail stations, much closer than a half or even a quarter mile of stations.
In our home region, all of the action now is adjacent to or within a block or two of rail
stations. East Village in Sandy, Fairbourne Station in West Valley City, the Novi TOD at
Jordan Valley Station, Fireclay in Murray City, and many others are examples of emerging
TODs immediately proximate to stations. Indeed, it seems as though every locality in this
region with a rail station is planning (under state law) for a TOD, town center, or downtown
immediately around the station. We see a similar tendency across the country – transit
agencies and cities create TOD policies, implement TOD zoning and zoning overlays,
develop TOD plans and have lists of TODs that have been already completed or are currently
being planned for on their sites. To stress the importance of diversity and affordability, TOD
is sometimes preceded by an E for Equitable (ETOD).
TOCs have been studied by ourselves and others using ½ mile buffers around stations. While
referred to as TODs, these station areas seem (by their scale) more equivalent to TOCs.
Park, K., Ewing, R., Scheer, B.C., & Khan, S.S.A. (2018). Travel Behavior in TODs vs.
non-TODs: Using Cluster Analysis and Propensity Score Matching. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.
3
Renne, J. L., Tolford, T., Hamidi, S., & Ewing, R. (2016). The Cost and Affordability
Paradox of Transit-Oriented Development: A Comparison of Housing and Transportation
Costs Across Transit-Oriented Development, Hybrid and Transit-Adjacent Development
Station Typologies. Housing Policy Debate, 26(4-5), 819-834.
In the former article, we found that after controlling for residential self-selection, the result
shows that a TOD/TOC motivates its residents to walk more and take transit more while
driving less. In the latter article, we found that whereas TODs/TOCs are more expensive
places to buy or rent housing, they are more affordable than hybrids and TADs (transit adjacent
developments) because the lower cost of transportation offsets housing costs. There
is no reason to repeat these studies as part of this proposed CETOC project.
So without taking a broader view of TOCs (1/4 mile or 1/2 mile buffers), which can wait
until the next round of CETOC funding, this project chooses to focus on what may be the
best case of TOD, that is, the case with the highest transit and walk mode shares. These are
TODs right next to rail stations that meet multiple criteria. Earlier research by the same
authors found that these exemplary TODs generate about half the vehicle trips, require about
half the parking, and have as many as 70 percent of their trips by modes other than
automobiles as compared to suburban development generally.
Ewing, R., Tian, G., Park, K., Stinger, P., & Proffitt, D. (2019). Comparative Case
Studies: Trip and Parking Generation at Orenco Station TOD, Portland Region and
Station Park TAD, Salt Lake City Region. Cities, 87, 48-59.
Ewing, R., Tian, G., Lyons, T., & Terzano, K. (2017). Trip and Parking Generation at
Transit-Oriented Developments: Five US Case Studies. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 160, 69-78.
Ewing, R., Tian, G., Lyons, T., & Terzano, K. (2017). Trip and Parking Generation at
Transit-Oriented Developments: Five US Case Studies. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 160, 69-78.
Hamidi, S., Etminani-Ghasrodashti, R., Kang, S., & Ewing, R. (2020). Institute of
Transportation Engineers Guidelines versus Actual Trip and Parking Generation for a
Transit-Oriented Development in an Auto-Oriented Region. Transportation Research
Record, 0361198120935112.
This proposed study explores the role of transit-oriented development (TOD) in producing
affordable housing and building inclusive communities. Through interviews with transit
operators, city planning agencies, and MPOs, we have already identified 102 TODs on 207
rail lines in 26 regions that meet eight criteria. Another 150+ TODs in these same regions
meet all criteria and are in planning or under development. In fact, more TODs are currently
in planning or under contraction than have been built to date. Clearly, this is not an
unimportant or insignificant form of development in rail served regions. These TODs form
the nuclei of TOCs, as we have defined them.
The first three criteria used to select TODs for this study are consistent with the definition
above and elsewhere, dating back to Peter Calthorpe’s original concept of TOD circa 1990
and including Robert Cervero’s definition of TOD in Transit Cooperative Research Program
4
(TCRP) Project H-27, "Transit-Oriented Development: State of the Practice and Future
Benefits" of 2004.
For this and earlier trip and parking generation studies, TODs are defined as:
(1) dense (with mid-rise or higher multifamily housing),
(2) mixed use (with residential, retail, entertainment, and sometime office uses in the
same development), and
(3) pedestrian-friendly (with streets built for pedestrians as well as autos and transit and
with public spaces).
We have added four additional criteria to maximize the utility of the sample and data. TODs
must be:
(4) adjacent to transit (literally abutting or within one block —transit passengers spill out
into the TOD),
(5) built after a high-quality transit line was constructed or proposed (and hence with a
parking supply that reflects the availability of high-quality transit),
(6) fully developed or nearly so (to realize their full potential), and
(7) with self-contained parking (so we can estimate parking supply and demand)
Nearly all of our TODs were also master planned.
Understanding the relationship between TOD and housing affordability requires accounting
for two dimensions of affordability: the potential cost savings of living in a transit-accessible,
mixed-use, and walkable location and the willingness of people to pay a housing premium
for that benefit. This tradeoff has led to a push to consider both the cost of housing and
transportation (H+T) in determining housing affordability.
In an ongoing study, the faculty in this consortium has compiled a complete (100%)
inventory of TODs adjacent to rail stations in the U.S. and investigated the H (housing cost)
component of location affordability. Using apartment rental data for all 102 TODs, the study
has found that market rate housing at TODs is generally affordable for moderate-income
households, those earning between 80 and 100 percent of area median income (AMI).
Indeed, only 20 percent of the apartments are affordable to low-income households (but only
those earning between 60 and 80 percent of AMI), using HUD standards. This number
includes naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) and designated, deed-restricted
affordable housing (DAH). The greater number of apartments in these TODs are priced and
advertised as “luxury” apartments with ample parking, occupied by renters who are not
naturally transit users.
Incorporating deed restricted affordable housing (or low-income housing) units into a TOD
project, or any project as a matter of fact, requires significant amount of effort during the
planning phase. In many instances it requires securing dedicated funding or many sources of
such funding which takes up to two years. In all instances it means planning for dedicated
low-income units. It is virtually impossible to incorporate dedicated affordable housing units
5
into finished projects. This and the fact that a great number of TODs are currently being
planned for and built best illustrate the need for projects like ours.
Building upon housing costs from the ongoing study, this project will integrate transportation
costs for these exemplary TODs (102 of them) to determine if the combination of H+T is
affordable at 45 percent of household income for households at different income levels.
Transportation cost for current TOD residents will be computed in three ways.
(1) For seven TODs in our earlier sample (the seven in the four peer reviewed articles
cited above), we have already counted vehicles coming and going from TODs,
counted people coming and going, counted parked cars at various intervals during the
day and night, and conducted intercept surveys to determine modes of transportation
used by residents. This allows us to calculate vehicle ownership and transit use for
residents, two main components of transportation costs. Vehicle ownership per
household can be computed from the nighttime parking counts divided by the number
of dwelling units. VMT will be computed from vehicle counts and four-step model
outputs for their respective traffic analysis zones.
(2) For all 102 TODs in our sample, we will directly extract transportation costs using
HUD’s Location Affordability Index (LAI). The LAI provides estimates of household
housing and transportation costs at the neighborhood level along with constituent data
on the built environment and demographics. The HUD site provides access to data as
well as comprehensive documentation of how the LAI was developed and updated.
(3) Most importantly, for all 102 TODs in our sample, our team is planning to leverage
StreetLight Data and their capabilities to deliver data and analyses about commuting
behavior and patterns near Transit Oriented Developments across the country. This
will minimize costs related to project travel and on-site work. StreetLight aggregates
multiple big data sources and distills them into usable analyses including Traffic
volumes, Origin / Destinations Studies, commuting patterns, Vehicle Miles traveled
along with the ability to connect certain analyses to demographic data. All this data is
key to completing this study.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Nov 2023 16:27:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2292743</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Studying the Effects of Disability on Choices and Desires for Travel and Neighborhood Location</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2292611</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This project will analyze quantitative data from an ongoing survey (which
will close before the start of this project) to improve understanding of
how individuals' choices and desires for local transportation and
neighborhood location in California differ based on disability along with
other characteristics, namely income, race, gender, geographic location,
and age. Additionally, it will collect new qualitative data through follow-up interviews of survey respondents to identify specific problems that
individuals in California face with transportation and housing. Relevant
products of this project will include an important source of data that
could be used in future data analyses too. Final reports with the results
from the analysis of survey data as well as the follow-up interviews be
distributed as appropriate to California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as well as disability advocacy
organizations. The researchers anticipate those materials will help to
empower people with disabilities as well as people from other
marginalized backgrounds to improve transportation and housing options
available to them and will assist policymakers in this regard. This will
likely be especially important in the context of California, where
suburbanization of poverty in large coastal metropolitan areas, aging of
the population as a whole, and high levels of dependence on private
automobility (including driving oneself as well as depending on family or
friends for rides) may together contribute to greater rates of social
exclusion among people with disabilities. Additionally, survey data will
include responses from people from diverse racial and geographic
backgrounds, including the Central Valley where people are more likely to
have racially marginalized backgrounds and experience environmentally
induced disabilities; this will be critical to understanding the diversity of
needs with respect to race, geography, and disability type.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Nov 2023 23:01:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2292611</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Quick-Response Research on Long-Term Strategic Issues. Task 47. Affordable Housing and Transit</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2083649</link>
      <description><![CDATA[No abstract provided.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2022 09:26:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2083649</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Transit-Oriented Development Screening Tool: Developing a Multi-criteria  Screening Tool to Identify Promising Locations for WSDOT-initiated TODs</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1931949</link>
      <description><![CDATA[There is growing public interest in implementing transit-oriented development (TOD) when and where appropriate and cost-effective. WSDOT urgently needs a screening tool that could help inform an understanding of the circumstances and locations where TOD might be appropriate. The assessment of TOD as alternative strategy for land use near transit stations is influenced by preferences in state and local public policy, as well as changing conditions in urban transportation and real estate market. TODs can be leveraged to support state and local government policies aimed at reducing vehicle miles traveled and shifting away from expansion of parking facilities that contribute to increased congestion. A key component of TOD is multi unit residential housing, which is a response to the car-dependent and transit-poor urban sprawl that has characterized the growth of cities around the world in the last century. TOD mixed uses also contrasts with transit-adjacent, single-use development that fails to foster livable neighborhoods that have the strong walking and cycling environment needed to complement and actively support the use of transit.

WSDOT is uniquely positioned to effectively catalyze TODs in the state of Washington. It can leverage its resources, including significant land holdings for parking and other transportation facilities, to build partnerships with regional transit agencies, municipalities, and private developers to initiate TODs. Through timely planning and implementing TOD projects, the agency can continue to promote environmentally responsible and socially equitable transportation services, while making important contributions to alleviating the affordable housing shortage. This innovation project is aimed at developing and testing an effective planning supporting tool that will help WSDOT identify the promising sites on which to focus its TOD efforts. The project could help effectively target scarce resources and serve as a model for other states to follow.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2022 12:08:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1931949</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RES2021-08: Evaluating Transit Equity and Accessibility to Affordable Housing in Tennessee</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1744056</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The purpose of this research project is to critically assess the interrelated issues of transit access to opportunities, affordable housing locations, and displaced populations in the major metropolitan regions of Tennessee.  ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2020 13:50:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1744056</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Synthesis of Information Related to Transit Practices. Topic SB-34. Coordination of Public Transit Services and Investments with Affordable Housing Policies</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/1708343</link>
      <description><![CDATA[
The goal of this Synthesis is to identify the potential mechanisms (both policies and programs) to coordinate public transit (both services and capital investments) with local affordable housing policies, and synthesize the current state-of-the-practice of transit systems that coordinate public transit services and capital investments with local affordable housing policies.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2020 20:21:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/1708343</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>