How Can We Reduce Poverty When It s Spreading Out? Reducing Poverty By Reducing Transportation Burden Scott Bernstein, CNT NASEO Annual Meeting September 19, 2017
Issues Where do the poor live? Why are the number of poor increasing? What are the options for reducing poverty? Will transit expansion help? What else will it take? How much will it cost to succeed?
What If We Planned Like This? Aiming for Balanced Investment Outcomes LIVABILITY Health Land & Resource Use Environment & Climate Resilience Accessibility & Walkability ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Fiscal Impacts Development Long-term Jobs Equity Value Capture Cost of Living COST EFFECTIVENESS & BENEFIT-COST SYSTEM CONDITION AND PERFORMANCE Short-Term Jobs Travel Time & Costs Operational Costs Systems Accessibility System Conditions Connectivity Safety
Metro Seattle GDP/Capita Soared, Unemployment Rate Dropped 2/3, Poverty Rate Barely Changed 2007-2015 14 12 10 8 6 4 77000 76000 75000 74000 73000 72000 71000 70000 2 Unemployment Rate Real GDP/Capitta Poverty Rate 69000 68000 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 67000
What Changed is the Number of People in Poverty & Where They Live The number of poor persons in Central city Seattle + Tacoma is 121,438 Suburban King and Pierce counties is 206,999 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 Just 30% of the poor live in 50000 central city Seattle and Tacoma, 70% in the suburbs 0 Seattle-Tacoma Suburban King- Pierce Total Metro Suburban
Poverty Reduction is a Two-Sided Coin Expenses Economic Success Incomes Which Tells Us How the Region Could Cut Unemployment 2/3 While Suburban Poverty Soared
Largest 26 US metro areas 1.33 x suburban-city people in poverty Los Angeles-Long Beach- New York-Newark-Jersey Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Atlanta-Sandy Springs- Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL- Riverside-San Bernardino- Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Houston-The Woodlands- Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI Washington-Arlington- Boston-Cambridge-Newton, Philadelphia-Camden- Tampa-St. Petersburg- Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, San Francisco-Oakland- Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA St. Louis, MO-IL San Diego-Carlsbad, CA Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, Portland-Vancouver- Minneapolis-St. Paul- Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO Baltimore-Columbia- San Antonio-New Braunfels, San Jose'-Sunnyvale-Santa 2000000 1800000 1600000 1400000 1200000 1000000 800000 600000 400000 200000 0 CC Suburban
Top expenses nationally for Working Poor Households $20,000 - $30,000 Income 1. Shelter 2. Transportation 3. Food 4. Healthcare 5. Energy 6. Telephone Shelter 22% Healthcare 10% Transportation 18% Food 14% Entertainment 4% Insurance & Pensions 4% Clothing & Services 3% Other 15% Water 1% Energy 6% Telephone 3%
Everywhere in the US, As Density Increases, VMT, Auto Ownership & T-Costs Drop 25000 20000 15000 VMT Annual Transportation Cost Household Density (per acre) 140 120 100 80 10000 5000 60 40 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 0
A Decade of Stale Incomes, Rising Costs High, persistent and prevalent poverty Cost of living exceeds growth in expenses Standard approaches re subsidizing and raising income and providing supportive services, aren t keeping up So saving a dollar is worth as much as generating a new one and Achieving both can start reducing poverty 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0-5000 -10000-15000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0-5000 -10000 Avg. Income = $8,815 Income 1st Expense 1st Net 1st 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Falling Behind $886/month Avg. Income =$22,630 Income 2d Expense 2d Net 2d 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Falling Behind $407/month
Another Approach Indexing Truer Affordability and Also Relating it to Climate Change How Housing Affordability is Usually Calculated Then and Now https://htaindex.cnt.org 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
Guideline 30% housing + 15% transportation = 45% H+T Affordability = Housing Costs + Transportation Costs Income http://htaindex.org
NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS Residential Density Employment Gravity Employment Mix Index Block Density Intersection Density Block Perimeter Bus Transit Connectivity Index Other Transit Connectivity Index Transit Access Shed Square Meters Transit Access Shed Jobs Transit Access Shed Trips per Week HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS Median HH Income Commuters/HH Avg. HH Size Auto Ownership + Auto Usage + Public Transit Usage TOTAL TRANSPORTATION COSTS Determining Household Transportation Costs
H+T INDEX IS USED NATIONWIDE California Strategic Growth Council used to allocate $120 million of cap-and-trade proceeds for affordable housing near transit HUD and DOT are using to screen sustainable communities and TIGER grant applications Metropolitan Planning Organizations in Bay Area, Chicago, DC and elsewhere using to re-screen, prioritize Long Range Transportation Plan investments The new HUD fair housing screen uses transportation affordability and transit access Metropolitan Transportation Commission in Bay Area used to justify helping capitalize Transit- Oriented Development investment fund State of Illinois 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 Experimental counseling tools (Phoenix, East Bay, Chicago) link users with locally available resources called Equity Express
What is Spatial Mismatch The region s area is 6,300 square miles Population is widely distributed Job centers much less so not matched to population centers Two-thirds of workforce drove alone One-third did not, opting to carpool, transit, walk, bike, or work at home Where People Live Where Workers Work
While Most Metro Residents Do Live Close to a Rail or Bus Line http://alltransit.cnt.org
Only a quarter of the workforce lives within ½ mile of high frequency transit
These numbers are much smaller for minorities and for the poor
1 192 383 574 765 956 1147 1338 1529 1720 1911 2102 2293 1 178 355 532 709 886 1063 1240 1417 1594 1771 1948 2125 2302 A Poverty Trap As net residential density drops, vehicle miles traveled per year increase As VMT increases, so does the combined cost of H+ T as a percentage of income 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 res_density vmt_per_hh_ami Linear (vmt_per_hh_ami) HT-80%AMI vmt_per_hh_ami Linear (HT-80%AMI) Linear (vmt_per_hh_ami) Linear (vmt_per_hh_ami)
It s a Trap! Households Move Seeking Lower Housing Costs But Get the Hidden Extra of Transportation
And Its Even Worse for Those Earning 80 % of AMI or Less http://htaindex.org
And Definitely Worse for the Working Poor.Whether in Seattle
And across the entire Seattle- Tacoma-Bellevue metro area
Or in the WA state capital of Olympia
And its surrounding metro area
Memphis Poverty Reduction Plan Achieving the Right Commitments Results in a More Efficient & Prosperous Memphis That Works for Everyone Jobs Planning for regional growth capture, supporting entrepreneurship Expenses Energy and water efficiency, sustainable & financial education Access Transportation to jobs Opportunities Job training, safety net, justice reform, program delivery Change Results 5,680 Jobs $218 m anti-poverty benefits $184 m wages $32 m cost of living savings $2+ m prosperity fund $170 m savings for non-poverty households $16 m business savings Competitiveness Resilience Public safety Livability Congestion relief Air quality Climate impact Resource efficiency Benefits
San Jose CA--$146 Million in Annual Income and Cost Reduction = 25% Reduction = 29,000 People Out of Poverty
Caution It s Not Just About Commuting or Transit Only 1 trip out of every 5 is for the journey to work 4 out of 5 are for shopping, services, recreation, social visits Transit is absolutely necessary to reducing the cost of living But so is walkable urbanism
This Place Has the Disappearing Carbon Blues Transport Carbon in Tons of CO2/HH/Year 9.7-14.6 5.8-10.7 3.9-6.1 2.4-4.4 0-2.43 Source: Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company Location Efficiency & the Transect Reveals Carbon Benefits of Good Urban Form
How to Get Started The Good News Could Be Improved People Are Voting for Transportation Choice Climate Action Commitments Actions Taken on Green Infrastructure and Flooding Protection Implementation is slowwww Not explicitly committed to poverty reduction Not yet explicitly committed to placemaking
Thank You! scott@cnt.org jen@cnt.org http://htaindex.org http://alltransit.cnt.org www.cnt.org/urban-opportunity-agenda