action for regional equity€¦ · investment (either through direct funding streams or indirectly...

Building the Line to Equity:Six Steps for Achieving Equitable Transit Oriented Development in Massachusetts

An Action for Regional Equity Case Statement

August 2006

Action for Regional Equity

PolicyLink is a national nonprofit research, communications,capacity building, and advocacy organization dedicated toadvancing policies to achieve economic and social equitybased on the wisdom, voice, and experience of localconstituencies.

Action for Regional Equity (Action!) is a coalition of 20Massachusetts organizations united to advocate for economicand social equity and working to address critical developmentchallenges facing the Commonwealth.

Design: Leslie Yang

All cover photos courtesy of D Samuel Marsh Photography.

Building the Line to Equity:Six Steps for Achieving Equitable TransitOriented Development in Massachusetts

Stephanie Pollack, Consultant, Principal Researcher

Kalima Rose, PolicyLink, Editor

Dwayne S. Marsh, PolicyLink

All Rights Reserved.Copyright © 2006


AcknowledgmentsThe completion of this document would not have been possible withoutthe tireless efforts of the leadership team of Action for Regional Equity,and the input of many local and national transit and communitydevelopment experts. Through their active participation, they providedthoughtful guidance, analysis, and perspective, and their real worldexperience brought credibility to the findings of this report. In particular,members Steve Meacham, Marvin Martin, and Meridith Levy were joinedby allies Warren Goldstein-Gelb, formerly of Alternatives for Communityand Environment and Erica Schwarz, formerly of Waltham Alliance toCreate Housing in reviewing the framing that shapes this document.

Action for Regional Equity Leaders include:

Gene Benson and Penn Loh, Alternatives for Community andEnvironment (ACE)

Lyn Billman-Golemme, American Planning Association, MassachusettsChapter

Jeremy Lui and Alex Zhang, Asian Community Development Corporation

Kathy Brown, Boston Tenant Coalition

Ed Marakovitz, Chelsea Human Services Collaborative

Lydia Lowe and Alice Leung, Chinese Progressive Association

Aaron Gornstein, Citizens' Housing and Planning Association

Juan Leyton and Steve Meacham, City Life/Vida Urbana

Cindy Luppi and Brian Thurber, Clean Water Action

Lisa Clauson, Community Labor United

Carrie Russell, Conservation Law Foundation

Nancy Goodman, Environmental League of Massachusetts

Ed Becker, Essex County Greenbelt

Marvin Martin, Greater Four Corners Action Coalition

David Harris, Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston

Nadine Cohen, Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

Tom Callahan, Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance

Danny LeBlanc and Meridith Levy, Somerville Community DevelopmentCorporation

Philip Bronder-Giroux, Tri-City Community Action Program

Alex Marthews, Waltham Alliance to Create Housing (WATCH)

Contents

Executive Summary 7

Introduction 8

Principles of Equitable TOD 9

Six Steps for Achieving Equitable Transit Oriented Development

One: Apply equitable development criteria to alltransit oriented development 11

Two: Build more affordable housing in TOD statewide 16

Three: Revitalize neighborhoods without displacing residents and businesses 19

Four: Foster community health and environmental justice in TOD statewide 21

Five: Demonstrate Equitable TOD using successful projects as a model 23

Six: Incorporate Equitable TOD in long-rangeplanning 25

Conclusion: Steps for Action! 27

Notes 28

Transit oriented development is a dynamic approachto building pedestrian-friendly, mixed-usecommunities around transit stations and connectingneighborhoods to their regions. The opportunities oftransit oriented development can benefit everyone, ifplanned with that intention. With a concerted effort,these developments can secure affordable housing forall income ranges, ensure improved environmentalquality, and link people and their neighborhoods toeconomic growth throughout the region. Equitabletransit oriented development can ensure that theCommonwealth maintains its status as one of theworld's premiere destinations to live, work, and play.Conversely, continuing development that providesprimarily high-cost housing and long commutesthreatens that status.

Action for Regional Equity (Action!), a coalition of thestate's leading housing, transportation, andenvironmental advocates, has developed six steps toguide transit oriented development in theMassachusetts region. These steps can promote broadaccess to economic opportunities and affordablehousing, ease of use for disabled riders, attention toenvironmental justice issues, improved air quality,increased transit use, and sensitivity to local economicdevelopment issues. Action! has a particular interestin finding policy solutions that address concerns oflow-income and working class residents who are atrisk of displacement because of escalating housingprices. While it has been historically difficult tointegrate housing and transportation planning andinvestment, the alignment of several political andcommunity forces will make this objective moreattainable in the coming years.

This case statement describes six steps that canadvance equitable transit oriented development andenable all communities to share the benefits andchallenges of building a sustainable Massachusetts.The steps are:

1. Apply equitable development criteria to all transitoriented development

2. Build more affordable housing in transit orienteddevelopments throughout the state

3. Revitalize neighborhoods without displacingresidents and businesses through transit orienteddevelopment investments

4. Foster community health and environmentaljustice through transit oriented development

5. Demonstrate equitable transit orienteddevelopment through model projects

6. Incorporate equitable transit oriented developmentinto long-range planning

In the pages that follow, each of these steps aredescribed using three lenses. For each of these sixpotential action areas, this case statement:

• Frames the issue;

• Summarizes the issues; and

• Identifies opportunities to take action.

Executive Summary

Building the Line to Equity 7 PolicyLink/Action for Regional Equity

Introduction: Transit OrientedDevelopment in MassachusettsToday

Like many other states, Massachusetts is increasinglyexploring investment in transit oriented development(TOD). TOD unites train, bus, and transit stops withhousing and commercial development, bicycle paths,public plazas, sidewalk redesign, and parking lotconstruction around transit stations or other nodes,such as downtown centers of sufficient density.

The Office for Commonwealth Developmentdescribes TOD as:

…compact, walkable development centeredaround transit stations. Generally including a mixof uses-such as housing, shopping, employment,and recreational facilities-TOD is designed withtransit and pedestrians as high priorities, makingit possible for visitors and residents to movearound without complete dependence on a car.TOD represents an opportunity for communitiesall across Massachusetts to enhance their qualityof life. With TOD, parking lots and underutilizedland near public transportation can be turnedinto vibrant mixed-use districts, diverse housing,and lively public places.

The Massachusetts' Bay Transportation Authoritycurrently manages 119 commuter rail stations, 53rapid transit stations (Orange, Blue, Red, anddowntown Green Line), and 78 trolley stations (GreenLine and Mattapan). Planned expansion projects, suchas the Fairmount Line and Green Line extension toSomerville/West Medford, hold tremendous potentialfor developing transit oriented development that notonly meets the criteria set out by the Commonwealthin the statement above, but for doing so inaccordance with principles of equity and thusbringing the benefits of TOD to everyone, includingresidents of low-income communities andcommunities of color.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts invests tens ofmillions of dollars in transit oriented developmentthrough transportation infrastructure investments andwith targeted programs that promote smart growth

and investment in affordable housing, economicdevelopment, and civic infrastructure. Action! urgesits members, environmental and transit justiceproponents, elected officials, and state administratorsto ensure that the state's diverse investments aredirected toward supporting transit orienteddevelopment that is equitable.

The application of equity principles has never beenmore critical for a growing arena of development.Research, common sense, and the daily experience ofthe thousands of residents represented by Action!organizations demonstrate the crucial connectionbetween housing affordability, transit investment, andlivability of communities. Access to public transitdefines the ability of many lower-income and workingclass Massachusetts residents to get to job centersand other economic opportunities. With combinedhousing and transportation costs in metropolitanBoston accounting for just over half of totalhousehold expenditures,1 the affordability crisis facingmany Massachusetts' households is severe. Usingtransit is one of the best ways to control soaringtransportation costs: an analysis by the Center forTransit-Oriented Development and Center forNeighborhood Technology, looking at nationwidedata on households of two persons or more, foundthat transit-using households lower their annualtransportation costs by more than $3,000 comparedto those that own one or two vehicles, do not usetransit regularly and spend 16–19 percent of theirannual income just on transportation.2 When theaffordability crisis is redefined to look at combinedhousing and transportation costs, rather than just thecost of housing, it becomes clear that affordableaccess to both housing and transit is not just theproblem of a limited socioeconomic group–affordableaccess to both is everyone's concern.

In 2004, the state's Office of CommonwealthDevelopment produced ten Sustainable DevelopmentPrinciples. A commitment to goals such as"Redevelop First," "Concentrate Development," and"Be Fair" should mean that the state becomes thestandard bearer for equitable transit orienteddevelopment. As TOD moves to the center ofMassachusetts' sustainable development agenda, it isvital that the rhetoric of equity is reflected in thereality of TOD programs and projects.

PolicyLink/Action for Regional Equity 8 Building the Line to Equity

Equitable TOD in Public andPrivate Development

Because TOD can take place across land parcels withdiverse owners, different tools must be applied acrossthe continuum of development, which includes publicinvestment, public land, regional planning, and theenforcement of regulatory requirements, to providethe greatest leverage for achieving equitable TODoutcomes. Projects can be categorized as:

• Primarily private (on private land, little or no publicinvestment, no state-required environmental reviewunder the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act(MEPA), limited need for local zoning changes);

• Private with public regulatory involvement (stateand/or local review required if substantial rezoningor special permitting is needed or if zoning overlaysrequire inclusionary housing or mixed-usedevelopments);

• Public/private partnerships with significant publicinvestment (either through direct funding streamsor indirectly through tax subsidies);

• Primarily public (on public land, with substantialpublic investment, and a public entity or communitydevelopment corporation as one of thedevelopment partners).

While there are typically more opportunities forleveraging equity outcomes from TOD projects withpublic financial involvement, potential exists acrossthe spectrum of public/private TOD investment, sincethe projects are all dependent on the significantpublic investment in the transportation and relatedpublic infrastructure.

Principles of Equitable TransitOriented Development

Transit oriented development can addressenvironmental, land use, and economic concerns incommunities throughout the Commonwealth. It is acomplex, challenging, and potentially rewarding

development approach that links planning foraffordable housing and transportation investment inways that connect residents to economic and socialopportunities. Because any development thatrevitalizes a town center or urban core can fuelgentrification, Action! has developed a set ofprinciples to guide transit oriented development inthe region that energize communities withoutdisplacing the people who live there. The principles,developed with the local constituencies representedby Action!, serve as guidelines for local governments,regional authorities, the state, residents, and thenonprofits that represent them. Their participation isessential throughout the planning processes thatresult in new developments. If Massachusetts alignsits public policy to these equity principles, everyonecan benefit from equitable transit orienteddevelopment.

Ensure community benefit. Because it taps publicinvestment or regulatory relief, transit orienteddevelopment should provide measurable communitybenefit, including connections to productiveemployment opportunities, access to public amenities,and an increase in local affordable housing.

Maintain affordability. At least 30 percent of allhousing developed or redeveloped as a consequenceof any transit oriented development should beprotected to ensure that it remains permanentlyaffordable to the entry level salary of a child careprovider from that community.

Prevent displacement. Structure state and localregulations so that transit oriented developmentenables anyone who wants to remain in thecommunity to do so.

Encourage community controlled housing. Priorityfor state funding should be given to jurisdictions thatare working to guarantee that at least 20 percent ofhousing units within one mile of a transit orienteddevelopment will be held in community control as apermanently affordable community asset.

Improve environmental quality. Design projectsthat maximize environmental benefit, reduceautomobile trips, measurably improve air quality, andreduce the incidence of health issues related toatmospheric pollution.


Promote environmental justice. Prioritize equitabletransit oriented development and improved publictransit for environmental justice neighborhoods asdesignated by the Executive Office of EnvironmentalAffairs' Environmental Justice Policy. (See page 13.)

Achieve full accessibility. Any development thatresults from transit investment must be completelyaccessible to riders regardless of age or physicalcondition.

Boost transit use. Prioritize transit orienteddevelopment that increases ridership both for urbanand suburban communities that rely heavily onexisting public transit and those that have a clearneed for greater transit access.

Plan for transit growth. Communities embarkingon significant development projects must have fullyintegrated transit options built into their planning,including improved accessibility for riders withdisabilities.

Encourage local economic development. Landuses resulting from redevelopment near transit shouldencourage local economic development, effectiveprivate partnerships with the nonprofit and publicsectors, enhance community-serving establishments,and discourage displacement of existing residents andsmall businesses.

Understand local context. Transit orienteddevelopment must take into account regionalvariations in development patterns and transit modesin different regions of the state.


Publicly funded housing, economic development, andtransit programs in Massachusetts provideopportunities to create equitable transit orienteddevelopment, building on the work of transportationand land use planners to connect bettertransportation to land use development. Theapplication of equitable TOD criteria to theseinvestments is essential to realize the full potential oftransit oriented development. The developmentssurrounding the transit infrastructure can secureresources from the TOD Bond Program, the CATNHPprogram, the MassHousing Priority DevelopmentFund, and the Commonwealth Capital Grantsprogram. Other affordable housing resources can bedrawn from Community Preservation Act funds, theLow Income Housing Tax Credits, the MassachusettsHousing Trust Fund, HOME funds, Housing InnovationFunds, and New Market Tax Credits.

To ensure more equitable transit orienteddevelopment, the state must also use its regulatoryand political influence to leverage new resources fortransit. The mechanisms for funding transit projectsare evolving: in the past, transit investment decisionswere made by both the Boston Metropolitan PlanningOrganization (MPO) and the Massachusetts BayTransportation Authority (MBTA). Under theCommonwealth's new approach, the MBTA will nolonger pay for the capital costs of expansion projectsand the Executive Office of Transportation plays alarger role in determining investment priorities. This isan important shift that influences where transit justiceadvocates will need to focus their future advocacy.

Best Practices

The best system-wide transit oriented developmentprogram in the United States has been adopted bythe Metropolitan Transportation Commission, whichplans transit in the San Francisco Bay Area. MTC'sperformance is in no small part due to theTransportation and Land Use Coalition, a regionalequity coalition similar to Action!, that hassuccessfully advocated for equitable investment intransit oriented development. After a decade ofcontention over light rail expansion to lower-densitysuburban communities at the expense of high-ridership bus investment, the MTC adopted newguidelines for rail expansion that prioritizedcommunities with greater rider density and fomenteddenser development around transit nodes.

The TOD Policy for Regional Transit ExpansionProjects, adopted in 2005 by the MetropolitanTransportation Commission, requires that all transitexpansion projects meet minimum corridor-levelthresholds for housing, either through existingdevelopment or through adopted station area plans,in order to receive funding. For example, thethreshold for a light rail expansion is a corridor-wideaverage of 3,300 housing units per station, meaningthat to qualify, a light rail expansion involving fivenew stations would have to demonstrate that itwould serve 16,500 existing or committed housingunits. To encourage affordable housing, the policycreates a bonus by counting affordable units moreheavily (i.e., lowering the threshold for number ofunits if more of the existing or planned units areaffordable).3 This practice acknowledges thatincreased density alone will not address housing

Step One: Apply equitable development criteriato all transit oriented development


affordability issues that can be spurred by transitdevelopment.

While the MTC is a leader in this arena, a review ofTOD guidelines created by large city transit agenciesrevealed that few include provisions to ensure thatpublic investment will be directed toward equitableTOD. At present, most TOD guidelines established bytransit agencies focus only on urban design issues.

Opportunities: Targetingplanning and investment thatcan finance equitable TOD

Massachusetts is a national leader in establishingfunds for both affordable housing and transitdevelopment innovation. Local government andcommunity organizations can strategically utilize theseprograms to forge more equitable TOD.

1. TOD Infrastructure and Housing SupportProgram (TOD Bond Program)

The TOD Bond Program, run by Massachusetts BayTransit Authority, offers the clearest opportunity toincrease and lock in equitable TOD investment. Itprovides multiyear funding to finance pedestrianimprovements, bicycle facilities, housing projects, andparking facilities in mixed-use developments locatedwithin one-quarter mile of a transit station. The MBTAawarded four grants in 2006, the program's first year.Three of the grants went to projects with asubstantial proportion of affordable housing(Atlas/Janus project in Chelsea, and Ashmont TODand Dudley Village in Boston). The fourth went to thecity of Lynn for badly needed station and streetscapeimprovements that addressed public safety concernsthat were diminishing usage of a potential transitoriented development site in one of the state'sdesignated environmental justice communities.

While the grants were a boost for equitable TOD, thegeneral program criteria do not explicitly includeequity principles, except in the affordable housing

requirements. If the project seeks direct support forhousing, it must meet affordability criteria (25 percentof units must be affordable to people at 80 percentof median income). These affordability requirementsshould be enhanced to reflect the reality that in manycommunities, particularly Boston, tenants arefrequently unable to afford housing at 80 percent ofthe area median income. Experience has shown thatnew development alone does not protectneighborhoods vulnerable to displacement from rapidhousing price increases. Explicit equity goals shouldbe a requirement for all TOD Bond Programapplications, not only those for direct housingsupport. The Office for Commonwealth Developmentslightly revised program requirements and re-releasedprogram constraints in July 2006. The number andscale of awards should be greatly expanded in 2007.

2. Commercial Area Transit Node HousingProgram (CATNHP)

Funded through the housing bond bill, CATNHPprovides municipalities, nonprofit, and for-profitdevelopers with 30-year deferred payment loans at 0 percent interest to support first-time homebuyerslocated "in proximity to public transit nodes" andwithin neighborhood commercial areas. Housingprojects of 25 units or more must target 51 percentof assisted units to households at or below 80percent of median income. This program offersopportunities to renters in areas where new transitinvestments drive up housing costs, but there ismissed opportunity to lower the threshold foraffordability of a greater proportion of the funding to60 or even 30 percent of median.

3. Priority Development Fund

MassHousing, the Commonwealth's quasi-publicaffordable housing bank, has allocated $100 millionto a Priority Development Fund primarily to "fill thegap" for certain housing development proposals.While $75 million of this can be used for anydevelopment where at least 20 percent of the unitsare affordable to households at or below 80 percentof median (with priority given to projects that meet


the Sustainable Development Principles), $22 millionhas been reserved for mixed-income housing projectsnear transit nodes (also meeting the 20 percentaffordability requirement), and the last $3 million isbeing awarded to communities for housing planningassistance. This program was created without anyspecific appropriation and may or may not becontinued when all funds have been allocated.

4. Commonwealth Capital

Created by the Office for CommonwealthDevelopment, this program consolidates tens ofmillions of dollars in discretionary grant programs for

cities and towns. Itrequires that 30percent of theeligibility for grantfunds be based on acommunity'sCommonwealthCapital score, whichmeasures how it ismeeting theSustainableDevelopmentPrinciples.

The CommonwealthCapital score affects

priority for programs including the TOD BondProgram (described above), the affordable housingtrust fund, the Executive Office of Transportation'sbike and pedestrian program, the Executive Office ofEnvironmental Affairs' urban brownfields assessmentprogram, and other programs relating to equitableTOD.

However, the scoring system used for fiscal years2005 and 2006 does not adequately weight equitycriteria or environmental justice goals. In the last twoyears, many suburban communities seemingly lackingin commitment to equitable development (Cohasset,Middleborough, Nantucket, and Orange) outscoredprojects from recognized environmental justicecommunities such as Roxbury and Somerville.

5. Commonwealth's 20-Year Transportation Plan

The Commonwealth is expected to release the finalversion of its 20-year transportation plan soon. Thedraft version of the plan incorporated a number ofequitable concepts, such as linking communities' landuse regulation to transportation investment, but itremains to be seen how such principles will apply tofunding priorities. There may be opportunities toadvance a "development-oriented transit" fundingagenda in the implementation steps of the final plan,as well as in the capital planning processesundertaken by the MBTA, the Executive Office ofTransportation, and the Boston Metropolitan PlanningOrganization. However, the plan is advisory, with noregulatory status.

The plan is not expected to establish priorities forprojects; it will simply list a half dozen or so worthyprojects. Prioritization decisions will fall to theCommonwealth or MPO, using criteria that are likelyto be contested. Community groups and localgovernments can weigh in to strengthen the finalequity criteria.

6. Boston MPO's Journey to 2030

The Boston MPO is currently developing its federally-required long-range transportation plan, Journey to2030, with adoption of a new plan scheduled forMarch 2007. Unlike the state's 20-year plan, this plandirectly shapes allocation of all federal and statetransportation funds. In the void created by thedeparture of Office of Commonwealth DevelopmentSecretary Foy and the MBTA ceding control of


OCD SustainableDevelopment Principles:The Office for CommonwealthDevelopment has adopted tenSustainable DevelopmentPrinciples to help define smartgrowth and guide theCommonwealth's regulatorypolicies and its infrastructureand discretionary capitalinvestment strategies. Theguidelines can be found at:http://www.mass.gov/Eocd/docs/pdfs/sdprinciples.pdf

Environmental Justice Communities: In 2002, theExecutive Office of Environmental Affairs adopted anEnvironmental Justice Policy focused on"environmental justice populations," which areneighborhoods that are either low-income (meaningthe median household income is equal or less than 65percent of the statewide median) or communities ofcolor (meaning the population is 25 percent or moreminority, foreign born, or lacking English languageproficiency). Maps of these communities can befound at http://maps.massgis.state.ma.us/ej/ej.pdf

planning to the Executive Office of Transportation,this long-range plan may set the state's transitinvestment priorities. Draft evaluation criteria toprioritize projects include general mention of regionalequity criterion, and the regional equity componentof the planning process includes special outreach andanalysis for 17 identified communities of concern,including nine neighborhoods in Boston. Equitable

TOD could beassured byimproving theevaluation criteriafor projects,changing thefunding priorities, orproposing newpolicies designed tosupport equitableTOD.

7. Criteria toPrioritize TransitProjects

Several years ago,the Commonwealth

developed criteria to prioritize transportationinvestments. Projects that receive the highest scoreswill be at the head of the line for state and federalNew Starts funding. By weighting transit investmentsaimed at helping underserved communities, equitableTOD could be rated more highly than other projects.

The Commonwealth or MPOs will either use thealready-adopted project selection criteria or modifythe criteria. Proposing changes to the projectselection criteria at either the statewide or BostonMPO level can effectively influence more equitabletransit investment.

New criteria could model the San Francisco-areaMetropolitan Transportation Commission'srequirements for new housing in corridors wheretransit services are planned. Such advocacy—ifsuccessful—could ensure that spending on bothtransit enhancement and transit expansion projectssupport equitable TOD and that transit spending islinked to development near the planned transitstations.

It is unclear whether the Commonwealth's 20-YearPlan or Boston MPO's Journey to 2030 will takeprecedence in setting transit funding priorities. Eitherthe Commonwealth will make the funding prioritydecisions, since the capital funding for these projectswill include a substantial state investment (evenfederal New Starts projects require a 50 percent non-federal match), or it will leave the decision to theMetropolitan Planning Organizations, whichtraditionally are responsible for prioritizing state andfederal transportation spending within their region.

8. MPOGovernanceReform

Transportationequity advocateshave long beenfrustrated by thestructure of theBoston MPO, whichhas historically beendominated byrepresentatives ofstate agencies.Although the MPOhas been expandedto include 14members (with five from state agencies), Action!remains concerned that the MPO does not accuratelyreflect the needs and concerns of environmentaljustice communities. In a recent report, researcherThomas Sanchez looked at MPOs in 50 largemetropolitan areas. He found that the Boston MPOhas relatively few members to represent the region(0.5 per 100,000 population compared to an averageof 1.4), has a 100 percent white membership (in aregion that is more than 20 percent of color), andthat its structure results in under-representation ofurban areas compared to suburban areas.4 Byweighing in on the composition of decision makers,the criteria that prioritizes funding, and thedevelopment options surrounding transit, equitableTOD can become a transformative reality in the state.Given the critical role of the Boston MPO in allocatingtransportation investment resources, creating a morerepresentative board is a high priority.


MPO Communities ofConcern: Working with itsEnvironmental JusticeCommittee, the BostonMetropolitan PlanningOrganization has identified 17target neighborhoods basedon the density of low-incomeand minority residents and theproportion of residents unableto speak English andhouseholds without a motorvehicle. These are similar butnot identical to the"environmental justicepopulations" targeted by theExecutive Office ofEnvironmental Affairs'environmental justice policy.

New Starts: The New Startsprogram, administered by theFederal Transit Administration,is the federal government'sprimary financial resource forpaying a portion (usually half)of the capital cost of locally-planned, implemented, andoperated transit projects suchas subway and light rail,commuter rail and bus rapidtransit systems. To qualify forNew Starts funding, transitprojects must meet specifiedcriteria related to projectedridership, cost-effectiveness,land use, and environmentaljustice.

9. MBTA Fare Increase

The MBTA has announced plans to raise fares byapproximately 25 percent in January 2007. This wouldbe the third fare increase since MBTA adopted theforward funding financial structure six years ago, andthe second fare increase in three years.

Action! members involved in the fare increase issueraise two aspects of equitable TOD that couldimprove the T's financial situation, which is drivingthe need for a fare increase. Falling ridership is amajor reason for the T's operating deficit. Well-designed, equitable TOD would increase ridership.Secondly, the MBTA could maximize long-termrevenue from TOD by coordinating better withcommunities and private developers to leverage theT's extensive real estate holdings to expand equitableTOD. These issues present opportunities to coordinateadvocacy for equitable TOD.


Building housing near transit that is affordable topeople below the median income can guaranteehousing for a range of households in all newdevelopment accessible to transit; maketransportation available to a range of households inall new development accessible to transit; increasetransit ridership, as those at below-market income aregenerally more transit dependent than higher incomehouseholds; and spread affordable housing across aregion, creating better employment access.

Utilizing zoning overlays, directing housing subsidies,and leveraging incentives and funding presents thebest opportunity to develop deeply affordablehousing (within the means of people below medianincome). Either the transit system or localgovernments can create incentives for deeperaffordability, like density bonuses and property taxexemptions.

There is no single regulatory framework that appliesto TOD projects on a statewide basis; inMassachusetts, primary control over land usedevelopment rests at the local level. State fundingprograms can incorporate equity requirements, butthese will only attach if the developer seeks programfunding. Some TOD projects, particularly thoseinvolving public land, require review under theMassachusetts Environmental Policy Act, but MEPAreview generally does not (and arguably cannot)require consideration of housing affordability.

Best Practices

Affordable housing and equitable developmentadvocates have had limited success making deeplyaffordable housing a systemic part of TOD projects.They have, however, won significant victories onspecific projects. Many cities across the country haveadopted either TOD guidelines or TOD zoningordinances.

When the Austin, Texas, City Council proposed a TODordinance to create special zoning in support ofplanned commuter rail expansion, a coalitionorganized to ensure that housing affordability wouldbe written into the zoning. The resulting TODordinance, adopted in November 2005, requiresstation area plans that "include a housingaffordability analysis and potential strategies forachieving housing goals." At the same meeting, thecity council adopted a resolution establishing a goalthat 25 percent of new housing in each station areabe affordable for rental units at 60 percent of areamedian income for at least 30 years, and forownership units at 80 percent of area median incomefor at least 10 years.

One increasingly utilized approach is to offerincentives to deepen affordability, aided by stateenabling laws that authorize municipalities to includesuch provisions in their zoning. In California, unlikeMassachusetts, state enabling laws allow forinclusionary zoning. More than 120 municipalitiestake advantage of this feature as a strategy to meetthe levels of affordability required in their local plansfor affordable housing. Additionally, developers canutilize a state density bonus provision that exceeds

Step Two: Build more affordable housing in TODstatewide


local zoning if they provide 25 per cent of the housesat affordable rents/sale prices. Many communitiesprovide density bonuses and other incentives becausestate law specifically allows municipalities to enactsuch zoning ordinances. Los Angeles, for example, iscurrently looking to create a sliding scale densitybonus for projects that provide units for either verylow income (below 50 percent of median) or lowincome (50 to 80 percent of median) households.Projects with deeper affordability would also beeligible for other incentives, such as a loosening ofminimum parking requirements. Massachusetts'Chapter 40R provides zoning overlays to deepen thedensity near transit hubs in exchange for theproduction of affordable housing. While a promisingfirst step, the affordability targets are not deepenough to reach most low-income families.

In Oregon, the city of Portland has taken a differentapproach, providing a ten-year exemption from cityproperty taxes for the residential portion of TODprojects that meet deeper affordability requirements(for example, 20 percent of units affordable to rentersat or below 60 percent of median income) upon ashowing that the exemption is necessary to make theproject financially feasible. In the first few years of theprogram, Portland granted tax abatements to sevenmultifamily housing projects with a total of nearly1,000 units.

Opportunities

1. Develop TOD Guidelines for theMassachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

Unlike a growing number of transit systems, largeand small, the MBTA does not have any writtentransit oriented development guidelines. Suchguidance could be used to shape the Requests forProposals when the MBTA makes its own landavailable for TOD projects as well as to decide whenthe transit authority will support private TODdevelopments through funding, support for localzoning changes, or other means. Action! couldadvocate for the MBTA to adopt equitable TODprinciples, ensuring that deep housing affordability isa central element of the guidelines.

2. Lobby for Statewide Zoning EnablingLegislation

A variety of efforts are currently underway by bothsmart growth and affordable housing organizations tochange Massachusetts' outdated and problematiczoning enabling act, Chapter 40A. The Office forCommonwealth Development refers to zoning as"the DNA of development." While local communitiesadopt their own zoning, Chapter 40A controls whatlocal zoning can and cannot do. This fundamentallaw has not, however, been adjusted to deal withcontemporary land use issues and fails to ensure thatcities and towns can effectively implement theirintended vision for their community. Empoweringregional planning groups to link neighborhoods, jobs,housing, and other services across communities couldprovide a crucial boost to advocates of regional equityand equitable development. Unfortunately, advocateshave had to spend more effort focusing on how tostop poor land use decisions rather than on how topromote smart growth, including equitable TOD.Enlightened state enabling legislation could addressoptions such as density bonuses (as in California) orproperty tax exemptions (as in Oregon) to pair withtransit overlays that reach deeper affordability.

3. Pilot Community TOD Guidelines thatPrioritize Housing Affordability

Transit advocates could pilot the adoption of eitherequitable TOD guidelines, including deep affordability,or of TOD zoning districts (leveraging the benefitsaccorded to communities under Chapters 40R and40S). Boston, because of the proposed extension ofservice to the Fairmount Line, or Somerville, becauseof the planned Green Line extension, would be goodplaces to start. Communities could secure LocalPriority Development Fund grants of up to $50,000 tofund the process.



Chapter 40R/40S: In 2004, the Massachusettslegislature enacted Chapter 40R, often referred to asthe "smart growth housing" law, which was designedto substantially increase the Commonwealth's supplyof housing, and decrease its cost, by increasing theamount of land zoned for denser housingdevelopment. Chapter 40R encourages communitiesto voluntarily create dense residential or mixed-usezoning districts near transit stations and in city andtown centers; in these districts, housing must beallowed "as of right" and 20 percent of the units ineach residential project must be affordable to low-income households (at or below 80 percent of areamedian income). Upon state approval of a localoverlay district, the community is eligible for a one-time payment from a Smart Growth Housing TrustFund and subsequently receives $3,000 per unit ashomes are built in the district. To address lingeringconcerns in many communities that new housing—especially housing aimed at young families—represents a potential economic strain on municipalbudgets, in 2005 the legislature enacted companionlegislation known as Chapter 40S. Chapter 40S insuresthat communities will be reimbursed for any net K-12education costs associated with children living inhomes in Chapter 40R zoning districts.

One of the greatest challenges facing those who careabout urban neighborhoods is figuring out how toimprove transit and infuse private funds intounderinvested communities, while avoidinggentrification that displaces existing residents andlocally-based businesses. New investment drives upproperty values, often even before the project actuallybegins. Displacement in the Boston area, for example,is a serious concern in neighborhoods slated toreceive new transit services (such as those along theFairmount Line and Green Line extension corridors),but it can also occur around existing transit stationswhenever a neighborhood begins to attract newdevelopment.

Best Practices

One key anti-displacement strategy is to address theproblem before it starts. When a transit line is slatedto be built, it is important to begin implementingprotections against displacement before land valuesbegin to rise significantly. Displacement can bereduced if land, housing, or businesses in the affectedcommunity are owned or controlled by not-for-profitorganizations or are strategically developed underaffordability covenants. Many of the policy optionsdescribed in the Action! case statement, CommunityControlled Housing for Massachusetts: ProvidingAffordability for the Long Term, should be applied inneighborhoods where displacement is a concern.

No net loss zones are another option. As explained bythe Institute for Community Economics, "a no-net-loss policy is a commitment by a city or other . . .entity to having the same amount of affordable

housing at the same levels of affordability in a givenneighborhood or larger area in the future as exists inthe present."5 Portland, Oregon, has tried toimplement no net loss policies with mixed success.

Opportunities

1. Strategically control land and its uses

Land acquisition or preservation by public agenciesshould be negotiated prior to any transit investmentand be subject to the principles of affordability andtransit equity described throughout this report.

2. Establish preferences for displaced residentsand businesses

If the locality controls the land, developers can berequired to give local residents and businesses

Step Three: Revitalize neighborhoods withoutdisplacing residents and businesses


Portland No Net Loss Policy: In 2001, as part of itscomprehensive housing plan, the city of Portland,Oregon, established a "no net loss" policy foraffordable housing in central city neighborhoods. Asadopted by the Portland City Council, the policyprovides that the central city will retain at least thecurrent number, type, and affordability levels ofhousing units that are home to people with incomesat or below 60 percent of area median income. Underthis policy, the city established a baseline inventoryand is using a combination of regulatory and fundingstrategies to ensure that, through either preservationor replacement, the central city experiences no net lossof affordable housing.

preference with respect to planned housing,employment, or commercial opportunities. Whenhousing is involved, such preferences need to becarefully crafted to comply with fair housing laws.Many communities draft targets that involve previouslocal residency, school attendance, employment in thearea, or other priority goals. For businesses, oneapproach is to require the developer to set asidespace at a specified rental price for a specifiedamount of time for existing enterprises in theneighborhood.

3. Transfer land or buildings to nonprofitorganizations

In neighborhoods where there is time to plan ahead(where a transit line is soon to be built), land orbuildings can be acquired and placed undercommunity control before values begin to rise.Establishing a community land trust is one means toaccomplish the transfer. The nonprofit land trust holdsthe land and preserves the affordability of housingand other buildings located on it.

4. Implement a "no net loss" strategy

The goal for a neighborhood concerned aboutdisplacement can be expressed as "no net loss" ofeither residents or local businesses. A multifacetedstrategy could include intensive efforts to preserveexisting affordable housing, efforts to help rentersbecome owners before prices rise, and efforts tosupport local businesses.


Perhaps the most significant transportation-relatedvariable for improved environmental quality is airpollution, from automobiles as well as the transitservice itself. Equitable TOD minimizes air pollutionand its associated health consequences such asasthma and other respiratory ailments. In order toredress environmental injustice, equitable TOD mustprovide better transit access and environmentalquality to communities that have historically facedheightened exposure to environmental hazards. Yetfew mechanisms exist to ensure that such issues areaddressed when transit oriented development is beingplanned. It would be valuable to create a process topublicly speak to issues of environmental health andjustice in connection with proposed TOD projects.

Best Practices

New models are emerging that provide opportunityfor introducing environmental health and justiceconcerns into TOD planning. Most are planning orproject agreements (e.g., Metropolitan PlanningOrganization plans, Massachusetts EnvironmentalPolicy Act review, and community benefitsagreements). Many measures that can help reducetraffic congestion and air pollution are also associatedwith development rules that can make housing moreaffordable. The method most commonly used toreduce vehicle trips is restricting parking. For example,the Los Angeles Citywide Affordable HousingIncentive Program allows affordable housingdevelopments within 1,500 feet of a transit stop tobuild only one parking space per unit, reducingvehicular emissions and construction costs with asingle regulation.

Opportunities

1. Reduce parking

Many TOD projects are denser than might otherwisebe allowed by zoning or local land use controls. Thebiggest environmental health impact associated withpopulation density is increased automobile traffic. Toaccomplish density reliant on transit or walking, TODprojects can reduce car trips by reducing the amountof parking associated with TOD projects (to one orfewer parking spaces per residential unit). Parkingmanagement strategies could be incorporated intostate investment criteria (such as the Transit BondTOD program previously described on page 12), intoenvironmental review under MEPA, or into local landuse goals and reviews.

2. Require air pollution impact analysis at thelocal level

While some TOD projects are subject to MEPA review,many are not. Local communities review TOD projectsunder local land use regulations such as the BostonRedevelopment Authority's Article 80 review orspecial permit processes in other communities.Communities concerned about vehicular traffic andair pollution associated with large-scale or dense TODprojects could campaign to get local authorities torequire localized air pollution impact analysis as partof the approval process for all proposed projects.

Step Four: Foster community health andenvironmental justice in TOD statewide


3. Incorporate equitable TOD into local climateplans

The city of Boston and many other Massachusettscommunities have local climate action plans.Equitable TOD can be an effective strategy forreducing automobile reliance and therefore emissionsof the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. Equitable TODcan therefore help to improve environmental qualityby making a localized but important contribution toreducing greenhouse gas emissions. Advocates forTOD should partner with those working on localclimate action plans to ensure that such plans call forincreased equitable TOD in areas around existing andplanned transit stations.

4. Raise environmental justice issues withpolicymakers

Advocates should move environmental justice issuesforward at the regional level through the Boston MPOJourney to 2030 process (discussed more fully in StepTwo, above) or at the project level through the MEPAenvironmental review process (also see the notes onthis in the following section).


One of the most promising strategies to demonstratethe benefits of equitable development is to create amodel project in greater Boston. Successful projectsbuilt according to equitable principles provide strongevidence of the viability of equitable transit orienteddevelopment. Both the Center for Urban andRegional Policy at Northeastern University and theOffice for Commonwealth Development havecollected collecting information on TOD projects invarious stages of planning.6 These surveys could helptransit advocates identify projects to partner with indeveloping models.

Best Practices

In its recent report "Making the Connection: Transit-Oriented Development and Jobs" Good Jobs Firstidentified 25 exemplary TOD projects (none in theBoston area).7 They found that three categories ofTOD projects were most likely to address the needs ofworking families:

1) Projects initiated by a community developmentcorporation;

2) Projects in which a community coalitionnegotiated for a Community Benefits Agreement; and

3) Projects in which an exceptional private developerintentionally designed a project for the benefit of alow-income community.

A Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) is a legallyenforceable contract, signed by community groupsand by a developer, setting out a range of community

benefits that the developer agrees to provide as partof a development project. Community-basedcoalitions have successfully negotiated CBAs forTODs, as well as other development projects. InDenver, for example, a coalition recently attached ahost of community benefits to the subsidy packagefor the redevelopment of the Gates Rubber Factorysite. The 70-acre brownfields site is being redevelopedinto a mixed-use transit community. Recent advocacysuccess by the Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliancearound the Economic Stimulus Act will provide newresources for investment in developmentopportunities such as these.

Opportunities

1. Shape a model community development-driven project.

Action! could reach out to the communitydevelopment corporation (CDC) community and toother community based organizations to identifyaffordable housing and/or mixed-use projects neartransit that are early enough in the planning processto serve as potential model projects. Action! wouldthen work with the CDC development team both toshape the project and advocate for resources neededto make the project happen. One candidate isJackson Square, which involves two CDCs (along withprivate developers) designated to develop severalparcels of MBTA and city land near the JacksonSquare stop on the Orange Line. The project isscheduled to start the city of Boston's Article 80zoning review process late this year.

Step Five: Demonstrate Equitable TOD usingsuccessful projects as a model


2. Integrate equity into a private TOD projectthrough a Community Benefits Agreement

To address private TOD development (in additionto/instead of a CDC-led project) groups can broker aCBA. When a private developer seeks public subsidiesfor a project, such as tax increment financing (alsoknown as district increment financing), groups maywin CBAs by negotiating public benefits such asaffordable housing, community services, First SourceAgreements, covenants that link residents toemployment opportunities through contracts withparticipating development entities, and other localhiring initiatives as a condition of receiving publicinvestment.


Comprehensive planning for TOD should occur atthree levels. First, it must include the entire region ortransit system-the Boston Metropolitan PlanningOrganization or the Massachusetts Bay TransportationAuthority, for example. Next, station area planningshould focus on both existing and planned transitstations. In most places, the municipality will carry outstation area planning in coordination with the transitagency. Finally, planning for specific TOD projectsneeds to align neighborhood planning and other localpolicy and zoning requirements with these largerplans. In the city of Boston, unfortunately, mostplanning occurs only at the project level andsignificant neighborhood planning is rarelyincorporated into zoning or approvals.

Best Practices

Planners and TOD experts agree that the best resultscome out of three-way collaboration among thetransit agency, the city or town government andcommunity residents. Planning should be done for theentire area around a station (rather than just forindividual projects). If a new corridor is planned, bothcorridor planning and station area planning areneeded. One way to facilitate good station areaplanning is to provide communities with the financialresources they need to create station area plans. InDenver, the metropolitan planning organization"flexed" highway dollars from the CongestionMitigation and Air Quality program and used thefunds to make grants to communities to conductstation area planning.

Opportunities

1. Station Area Planning

Massachusetts does not yet employ station areaplanning, but this could change if the upcoming 20-year transportation plan establishes meaningfulcorridor planning requirements. In most other states,station area planning is undertaken either under cityauspices or through a coordinated effort between thetransit system and the affected community. Stationarea planning can also be done for existing stationswhere improvements are planned (such as Maverick inEast Boston, Fairmount Line stations, and Ashmont).The MBTA has a program called "Taking it to the T,"which provides technical and planning assistance tocommunities who would like to use MBTA-ownedland to catalyze TOD. While station area planning is afundamental element of achieving good TOD, thereare real barriers to successful station area planning inMassachusetts: there is no precedent for it in thestate, the MBTA lacks meaningful resources toengage in such a process for non-MBTA land, and inmany communities such plans will only be relevant ifthe city or town then enforces them through zoningor permitting.

2. Corridor Planning

Whether or not the final version of theCommonwealth's 20-year transportation plan requirescorridor planning, Action! could create a model planfor all or part of a corridor. One possibility would beto reach out to the Fairmount/Indigo Line CommunityDevelopment Corporation (CDC) collaborative, which

Step Six: Incorporate Equitable TOD in long-range planning


recently produced an excellent collaborative vision forthe corridor to implement their plan. This couldinclude rezoning around the stations to make landuses consistent with those called for in the plan. Analternative approach would be to work with theSomerville CDC and others in Somerville and Medfordto create a corridor vision for the Green Lineextension.

3. Review of TOD Projects Under theMassachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA)

Environmental reviews provide opportunities tointroduce equitable TOD into the planning process.Much of the "planning" for TOD and other large-scale development in Massachusetts actually occurafter a developer has proposed a specific project at aspecific site. Many of the larger TOD projects arealready subject to review under the MassachusettsEnvironmental Policy Act (MEPA), including anyprojects on land sold or leased by the MBTA. TheMEPA process allows interested commentators toraise concerns specific to the proposed project and toset an agenda for similar projects, to promoteconsistency across projects. The Executive Office ofEnvironmental Affairs has a policy in place addressingadditional environmental review requirements fordefined environmental justice communities. Also,MEPA reviews of proposed transit projects (such asthe Green Line extension) present an opportunity fortransit advocates to influence TOD, as MEPAconsistently requires review of the land use impacts ofproposed transportation investments.


The need for equitable TOD has never been greater.As Massachusetts prepares to invest significantresources toward the achievement of transit orienteddevelopment, the time is right to add equity to theplan and place it at the heart of effective strategies toaddress affordable housing, environmental concerns,and sustainable development. If done properly, transitoriented development can build better communitiesfor all Massachusetts residents.

The six steps outlined in this case study provide a roadmap for achieving equitable TOD. Targetinginvestment and leveraging existing resources makesuccess possible in the near-term. Deeper affordabilityand revitalization without displacement buildneighborhoods that are diverse, provide benefits thatare available to all, and create strong, stablecommunities. Including environmental health andjustice in TOD plans produces a sustainable future.Demonstration projects offer the means to showcasethe advantages of communities built on equitableTOD principles. Long-term planning and adequateinvestment in equitable TOD spread its benefits andenhance its significant positive impact.

The dramatic environmental, economic justice, andtransit challenges facing the Commonwealth and thenation require building alliances to produce significantresponses. Equitable transit oriented developmentoffers tools for facing those challenges, whilesimultaneously improving communities and individuallives.

Conclusion: Steps for Action!


1 Center for Neighborhood Technology and SurfaceTransportation Policy Project, Driven to Spend:Pumping Dollars Out of Our Households andCommunities (Chicago, IL and Washington, DC,Center for Neighborhood Technology, 2005).2 Center for Transit Oriented Development and Centerfor Neighborhood Technology, "The AffordabilityIndex: A New Tool for Measuring the TrueAffordability of a Housing Choice," Market InnovationBrief, January 2006.3 Information on the policy can be found athttp://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/tod/TOD_policy.pdf 4 Thomas W. Sanchez, An Inherent Bias? Geographicand Racial-Ethnic Patterns of Metropolitan PlanningArea Boards (Washington, DC, The BrookingsInstitution Series on Transportation Reform, 2006). 5 Tasha Harmon. Integrating Social Equity and GrowthManagement: Linking Community Land Trusts andSmart Growth (Springfield, MA, Institute forCommunity Economics, 2003), page 42.6 Urban Land Institute, On the Right Track: MeetingGreater Boston's Transit and Land Use Challenges(Boston, MA, Urban Land Institute Boston DistrictCouncil, 2006), Appendix A. The OCD database ofTOD projects can be found online athttp://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ocdtopic&L=3&sid=Eocd&L0=Home&L1=Transportation&L2=Transit-Oriented+Development7 Sarah Grady. Making the Connection: Transit-Oriented Development and Jobs (Washington, DC,Good Jobs First, 2006).

Notes


PolicyLink Headquarters:101 BroadwayOakland, CA 94607Tel: 510/663-2333Fax: 510/663-9684

Communications Office:1350 Broadway, Suite 1901New York, NY 10018Tel: 212/629-9570Fax: 212/629-7328

www.policylink.org


www.policylink.org/BostonAction

Building the Line to Equity:Six Steps for Achieving Equitable Transit OrientedDevelopment in Massachusetts


action for regional equity€¦ · investment (either through direct funding streams or indirectly...

Documents