Is transit-oriented development affordable for low- and moderate-income households?
2024
- 9Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage9
- Abstract Views9
Article Description
In this study, we explore the role of transit-oriented development in producing affordable housing. Using a list of eight criteria, we identified 107 TODs in 24 rail-served regions. By employing a variety of research techniques, we concluded that, on average, 24 % of units in TODs are affordable to households earning between 50 and 80 % of the Area Median Income (i.e., low- and moderate-income households, respectively). While 14 % of the units are designated affordable housing (DAH), the remaining 10 % are naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH). Our results also show that the very fragmented and localized approach to affordable housing provision has resulted in an uneven distribution where close to half of the 107 TODs offer none or less than 10 % of their units as affordable, while 15 % of the TODs are 100 % affordable.Furthermore, both voluntary and regulatory measures adopted at city, county and state levels to incentivize the production of affordable housing have only limited impact, resulting on average in 5–10 % of affordable units and rarely exceeding 15 %. In addition, they produce units affordable to households earning about 80 % of the AMI. Top-down regulatory measures seem to have a very limited impact on numbers of affordable units offered in TODs and are less effective than bottom-up voluntary and targeted programs, policies, and actions. This means that various forms of Inclusionary Housing Policies and Zoning (the way they are currently implemented) are ineffective in producing affordable housing in TODs.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know