Comments on: Merging Transportation and Land Use Planning at the Federal Level http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/04/27/merging-transportation-and-land-use-planning-at-the-federal-level/ Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:43:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: barb swanson http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/04/27/merging-transportation-and-land-use-planning-at-the-federal-level/#comment-46165 barb swanson Sat, 29 May 2010 00:31:40 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=6762#comment-46165 After thought I had lived in Sacramento area for several years, my voucher was only for six hundred then moved up due to market rating to seven hundred and seventy-five dollars. I understand that San Diego is very expensive to live... What I have found on the net housing is up to 1700 to 1600 monthly. I found that Ca. is less expensive than Midwestern areas. Probably due to the cold and more need for warmer dress and longer winters. Humidity is very high here but the summers here are wonderful... After thought

I had lived in Sacramento area for several years, my voucher was only for six hundred then moved up due to market rating to seven hundred and seventy-five dollars.

I understand that San Diego is very expensive to live… What I have found on the net housing is up to 1700 to 1600 monthly.

I found that Ca. is less expensive than Midwestern areas. Probably due to the cold and more need for warmer dress and longer winters. Humidity is very high here but the summers here are wonderful…

]]> By: Kate http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/04/27/merging-transportation-and-land-use-planning-at-the-federal-level/#comment-42493 Kate Wed, 28 Apr 2010 13:27:54 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=6762#comment-42493 @Colin. Agree -- it's more affordable for the folks living in the units, but still more expensive to build the units. Unless/until the regs change to incorporate H+T index into affordability calcs, HUD (or really state HFAs) still has to subsidize to meet the same rent or purchase price regardless of where units are built. For now, that means less units over all unless more funds are available to subsidize housing near transit. @Colin. Agree — it’s more affordable for the folks living in the units, but still more expensive to build the units. Unless/until the regs change to incorporate H+T index into affordability calcs, HUD (or really state HFAs) still has to subsidize to meet the same rent or purchase price regardless of where units are built. For now, that means less units over all unless more funds are available to subsidize housing near transit.

]]> By: Colin http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/04/27/merging-transportation-and-land-use-planning-at-the-federal-level/#comment-42354 Colin Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:30:28 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=6762#comment-42354 @Kate - It is certainly true that HUD has the daunting task of attempting to meet the vast need for affordable housing across the country. However, groups such as the Center for Neighborhood Technology, TransFORM, and Reconnecting America have shown with the <a href="http://htaindex.cnt.org/" title="H+T Index" rel="nofollow">H+T Index</a> that affordable housing becomes less affordable when it is built in places that don't include transportation choices. In many cases, the combined cost of housing and transportation in sprawling development is higher than in TODs or other accessible locations. Even though housing costs seem higher, overall cost of living goes down, which better serves the target population. @Kate – It is certainly true that HUD has the daunting task of attempting to meet the vast need for affordable housing across the country. However, groups such as the Center for Neighborhood Technology, TransFORM, and Reconnecting America have shown with the H+T Index that affordable housing becomes less affordable when it is built in places that don’t include transportation choices. In many cases, the combined cost of housing and transportation in sprawling development is higher than in TODs or other accessible locations. Even though housing costs seem higher, overall cost of living goes down, which better serves the target population.

]]> By: Tom West http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/04/27/merging-transportation-and-land-use-planning-at-the-federal-level/#comment-42324 Tom West Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:50:54 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=6762#comment-42324 Transport planning is land use planning. You simply cannot plan one without the other, as transport supply influences land use as much as land use influences transport demand. There are a myriad of bedroom communities which simply would not exist if it wasn't for the transport network connecting them with the employment centre. Transport planning is land use planning. You simply cannot plan one without the other, as transport supply influences land use as much as land use influences transport demand. There are a myriad of bedroom communities which simply would not exist if it wasn’t for the transport network connecting them with the employment centre.

]]> By: Kate http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/04/27/merging-transportation-and-land-use-planning-at-the-federal-level/#comment-42320 Kate Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:44:05 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=6762#comment-42320 "Moreover, the FTA does not have the funds to ensure that there will be money for affordable housing around stations: that’s HUD’s role. Plenty of that agency’s grants go to projects located far from good transit." While I absolutely agree that the end-goal is coordinated housing and transportation investment, we need to acknowledge that HUD's job is to take limited Federal dollars and stretch them as far as possible to meet the affrodable housing need in our country. Financing housing near transit -- especially new TOD where lots of investment is happening -- is expensive. The subsidy per unit required to make these deals possible is much higher than in outlying areas with lower land values. Affordable housing near transit helps the transit project by raising ridership projections and cost effectiveness, while it makes the housing more costly to build. Maybe it's appropriate for DOT money to bridge this subsidy gap. “Moreover, the FTA does not have the funds to ensure that there will be money for affordable housing around stations: that’s HUD’s role. Plenty of that agency’s grants go to projects located far from good transit.”

While I absolutely agree that the end-goal is coordinated housing and transportation investment, we need to acknowledge that HUD’s job is to take limited Federal dollars and stretch them as far as possible to meet the affrodable housing need in our country. Financing housing near transit — especially new TOD where lots of investment is happening — is expensive. The subsidy per unit required to make these deals possible is much higher than in outlying areas with lower land values. Affordable housing near transit helps the transit project by raising ridership projections and cost effectiveness, while it makes the housing more costly to build. Maybe it’s appropriate for DOT money to bridge this subsidy gap.

]]> By: Cap'n Transit http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/04/27/merging-transportation-and-land-use-planning-at-the-federal-level/#comment-42321 Cap'n Transit Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:44:05 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=6762#comment-42321 The delay in subway construction may have influenced the growth of <a href="http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2009/05/roosevelt-island-whats-up-with-that.html" rel="nofollow">car culture on Roosevelt Island</a>. The delay in subway construction may have influenced the growth of car culture on Roosevelt Island.

]]>