The Promotion of Mixed Income Neighborhoods in Hollywood, California
Chapter I:
Introduction
The facts are impossible to ignore: focusing on places, health and walkability requires increased public transit infrastructure, which creates new jobs, enlivens neighborhoods, creates local business opportunities and connects communities, both vulnerable and thriving, to vital amenities and resources. (Raphael &Espiau, 2010, par. 9)
Transit-oriented development (TOD) is a neighborhood development plan focusing on easy access to major transit stops. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) defined TOD during the 1990s when undertaking a project consisting of initiatives to promote livable communities: “Transit-oriented communities are characterized by design and development patterns that are conducive to the used of transit, bicycling, and walking access opportunities – shopping, business centers, services, housing, and others” (Parker, 2002, p. 15). The FTA at the same time described TOD as an antidote to “sprawl development patterns (that have led) to increasingly longer trips, poor pedestrian access, traffic congestion, and adverse environmental impacts” (Parker, 2002, p. 25). Sprawl is the opposite type of growth from TOD because development is low density and dispersed over a large region without easy access by walking or mass transit. (Parker, 2002, p. 29)
Since that time the definition of TOD has expanded to fit specific urban environments that become more cohesive as neighborhoods when the focus of the land use design is easy access to mass transit for the residents because they can walk or bicycle or park their car near the entrance of the transit stop. TOD is attractive to many cities and urban areas because it is designed as sustainable development. A mix of socio-economic levels is a characteristic of TOD. The availability of mass transit decreases the negative impacts of automobiles on the environment. Less fossil fuel is used for gasoline and oil because the amount of automobile traffic is reduced. Dangerous emissions entering the atmosphere are also decreased for the same reason. Therefore, two of the advantages to alternative transportation methods are a decrease in road congestion, (traffic jams) and less air pollution (HUD 2013).
Developing urban sustainable projects requires multi-disciplinary collaborations so that research on community development through transport is not the only topic that concerns TOD researchers. Other related issues, such as “energy, water and climate change” are part of the total development design strategy (CNT.org). Census information is valuable because income plays a role in successful TOD. A basic purpose of (TOD) is to develop residential areas with mixed income families into neighborhoods with easy access to mass transportation. Ideally, retail centers are placed within walking distance of the residents. A well-designed TOD plan features easy access to a mass transit entrance located close to homes and shops. The plan needs to make well-repaired sidewalks and paths available so residents will be encouraged to walk. One of the goals of TOD is to enhance healthy living; walking is a health activity for all ages. TOD designs offer job creating and small business opportunities. Neighborhoods need to have pleasant parks and other areas for group outdoor activities. The overall goal of the design should allow opportunities for connecting communities instead of separating them along economic or ethnic boundaries. An overall goal of TOD neighborhoods is to break down barriers between residents with different incomes and ethnicities. Raphael and Espiau (2010) have emphasized that the basic goal of TOD is to create flourishing neighborhoods that allow residents easy access to necessary services and resources, to medical and entertainment facilities and to essential consumer goods like groceries and pharmacies.
Retail centers in TOD neighborhoods include grocery shops, medical facilities, pharmacies, childcare, and shopping opportunities. Many reasons have been driving the trend for TOD. The main reason is economics. Workers need to be able to reach their jobs on time and without spending a lot of money on gasoline that happens when using a private vehicle. Fossil fuel is becoming more expensive making mass transit a logical choice compared to using private vehicles. Families need easy access to neighborhood services for fresh groceries, childcare and medical services.
In the beginning of urbanization, early in the twentieth century, walking was the most commonly used way to reach access to mass transit so for the riders’ convenience; stations were about one quarter of a mile apart (Levinson et al., 2012). Street intersections later became the most convenient location of bus stops. Buses were part of the older mass transit systems as were trolleys, each offered cheap or free transfers to rapid lines (Levinson et al., 2012). Finally, TOD began developing around the rapid line stations (Levinson et al., 2012).
White middle class families poured out of the city centers into suburban low-density developments after World War II. And then rapid transit on older “legacy” lines and new lines enabled the distance between stations to grow from one to two miles from each other (Levinson et al., 2012, p. 1). Americans reliance on the automobile required parking for the riders near the rapid mass transit entrances (Levinson et al., 2012). As early as the 1970s when a call for clean environment California and gas prices sharply increased across the U.S., mass transit on rails started to gain momentum. In the 1980s the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (now known simply as Metro) began building the rapid transit metro system, years earlier than TOD became firmly established as an urban strategy (LA Metro, 2013)
It was not until 1987 that a report was published by the national Urban Mass Transit Administration (currently known as the FTA) introducing the serious need for a program dedicated to TOD; the program is now known as the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP). The TCRP was established in the summer of 1992 (Arrington & Cervero, 2008) and enhances TOD by offering transit agencies relevant research on the subject. For example the TCRP report on the “Effects of TOD Housing, Parking, and Travel” has been used as a resource for this study. The dynamics of housing, parking and commuting for modern urban development are addressed in the report for planning easy access to mass transit from mixed-income neighborhoods.
Services and transportation within walking distance of homes have been identified as a basic need of urban families. Walking or riding a bicycle cost little, and they are also good exercise. That points out an underlying purpose of TOD, to make convenient, healthy, and safe neighborhoods available. Neighborhoods with mixed income levels are predicted to result in a cultural mix of residents and a stable housing economy according to Reconnecting America (Belzer, 2007, p. 3).
Another definition applied to TOD by Haughey and Sheriff (2010) puts an emphasis both on new construction and repair. TOD focuses on building, new construction, homes, retail and commercial centers and establishing mixed-use areas as well as the preservation by renovation and/or rehabilitation of homes and retail buildings that allow people to walk to mass transportation entrances (Haughey& Sherriff, p. 2). The modes of transportation under consideration are usually thought of as environmentally friendly transport such as mass transit or walking and using a bicycle. The types of mass transport range from (a) reliable bus, (b) bus rapid transit (BRT), (c) street car, (d) light- and heavy-rail commuter trains and (e) subways (Haughey & Sherriff, p. 4).
The purpose of this research is to evaluate the growth or decline of TOD projects in Hollywood, California since 2000 and the success over time of the first TOD projects located in Hollywood/Western. TOD projects in Hollywood/Western including in Hollywood/ Highland were finished about the end of 2001 (TRB, p. 36). This research is a longitudinal time series study.
Hypotheses
If residents with different levels of income and diverse ethnicities are living in the same TOD-designed neighborhoods, the result is positive for the residents of the TOD neighborhoods, (resulting in long-term stability for the area compared to other similar urban neighborhoods in Los Angeles that are not TOD).
Background and Significance of the Problem
Transit oriented development is a strategy to keep households close to mass transit stations while at the same time offering mixed-income neighborhoods. Urban and suburban areas with TOD are considered sustainable. Benefits include reducing transportation costs such as commuting. TOD is an urban and suburban development located near major rail and/or bus stops located within walking distance of residents in the area. By the early 2000s the Transportation Research Board (TRB) (2004, p. 36) reported that many cities in the United States had already integrated TOD by planning, renovating and/or constructing neighborhoods within easy access to mass transit. Mass transportation has not been a priority for the transportation infrastructure in the U.S. for many years. Americans are famous for enjoying their personal freedom and owning their own automobile and other vehicles. Often people have two or more cars so everyone can reach work and/or school on time in their own vehicle. Mass transportation has become more acceptable compared to cars because it is a sustainable way to travel. Traffic congestion, traffic jams and the cost of driving to work has made finding a solution to the problem important, especially for low-income families.
The other important characteristic of TOD is to include affordable housing in neighborhoods. Affordable housing is created because the less money spent on transportation; a larger portion of the budget can be spent on housing. Mass transit can also benefit because of a gain in riders. Lower-income households mixed with other socio-economic levels are thought to have access to better opportunities. TOD decreases reliance on fossil fuels and also decreases greenhouse emissions. Urban planning for mixed-income housing near mass transit stations discourages gentrification.
The Center for Transit-Oriented Development (CTOD) was formed in 2003 from three separate organizations so they could more efficiently work together to promote TOD as a nationally viable real estate product (Heffernan, 2006, p. ii). CTOD works with all the stakeholders in city development including railway and bus agencies, urban and suburban developers, investors, and community organizations. The aim of CTOD is to increase affordable housing and the options available for location and home purchases for people at lower income levels by using transit investments. At the same time urban and suburban neighborhoods and downtown/city centers could be revitalized. Their main goal is “preserving and promoting diverse transit oriented neighborhoods” (Heffernan, 2006, pg. ii).
Mixed-income housing developments provide more stable communities than conventional because the neighborhoods are mixed-use so grocery stores, retail shops, galleries and meeting places are easily assessable. Childcare and medical services are important parts of the mix, too. Four important characteristics of stable mixed income communities are social seams, barriers & edges, social awareness and permanent affordable housing. The whole community can shop, play, worship, find entertainment or go to school in areas called “social seams” (Lund, Cervero, &Willson, 2004, p. 25). A mix of different races and socio-economic backgrounds meet within social seams due to the activities there. Barriers & edges are fences, hedges or other types of structures that divide parts of the neighborhood so the land-use will remain the same without impacts from the rest of the neighborhood. “Social awareness” refers to the homeowners’ awareness that a mix of socio-economic housing is a stabilizing characteristic so; therefore, the residents will make efforts to maintain the mixture (Lund, Cervero, &Willson, 2004, p. 25). Permanent affordable housing is guaranteed to low-income families even if a big change in the neighborhood occurs.
Gentrification
The general rule-of-thumb that “location matters” did not turn out to be the case for housing renovation projects in the years between 1995 to 2000 (Helms, 2003, p. 474). Instead, the researcher determined that “the characteristics of a building and its neighborhood” are deciding factors on whether a renovation will likely be carried out. This is a factor in TOD because the location of some of the real estate may not be attractive to buyers, but other aspects, such as the variety of neighbors and the closeness to mass transit, carry more importance. Careful planning to maintain low-income housing next to mass transit stations is necessary in order to “alleviate gentrification pressures near transit stations” (Belzeret al., 2007, p.1).
Economics
People are turning to TOD neighborhoods because the cost of using a personal vehicle has become very high; in some places higher than the cost of housing. When shelter costs more than transportation, the economic viability of a community is damaged, and households are drained of wealth (Heffernan, 2006, p. vii). The cost of gasoline and maintaining a car for commuting places a burden on family budgets. People want efficient and convenient alternatives to using the family car.
Mass transportation use increased by 25 percent from 1995 to2005. According to the American Public Transportation Association, over 9.7 billion trips were made on some form of public transportation during 2005 (Hefferman, 2006, p. vi). During 2006 more than seven hundred new mass transit stations were being constructed (Hefferman, 2006, p. vi). Unfortunately, the opportunity to use mass transit has not been available for lower income residents. A tragic example is the unsuccessful evacuation that took place in New Orleans during the Hurricane Katrina event. Residents had no access to transportation so they could evacuate the flooded city. On the other hand, during Hurricane Rita, people had access to private cars but the roads leaving the Texas Gulf Coast area produced massive traffic jams and road congestion.
TOD in Denver and Australia
A convincing argument in favor of mixed income TOD for areas in Denver resulted in building FasTracks (Belzer, et al., 2007). The light rail, FasTracks, was approved in Denver’s 2004 election. Belzer (et al., 2007) pointed out that housing demand for homes near mass transit could grow by 344 percent by 2030. Close to one half of the growth (approximately 40 percent) was expected to take place due to low-income housing (Belzeret al., 2007, p.1). Low-income residences have household earnings totaling less that 80 percent of the areas average income, or “$51,600 for a family of three in 2006.” The largest budget item, after housing, for Americans is transportation. Household savings are an advantage of lower transportation costs. Four times as many low income household members in Denver use mass transit, demonstrating that locating homes within easy access to train stations is a successful strategy. Linking affordable housing and low transportation costs works well (Belzeret al., 2007, p.1).
Research on the attitudes of residents living close to rail stations in Perth, Western Australia demonstrated that decreased travel and sustainable mobility are already commonly found in high-density urban developed areas (Olaru, Smith &Taplin, 2011). Attitudes of residents are more important for issues of mobility, instead of the type of neighborhood where the research participants lived (Olaru, Smith, &Taplin 2011, p. 219). The research showed that residents in Perth decided where in the city to live based on the attributes of neighborhoods and the features of a house, instead of the proximity to mass transport (Olaru, Smith, &Taplin 2011, p. 219).
The large amount of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere from gasoline and diesel engines has added to the problem of climate change. Therefore, it has become important to determine whether or not TOD strategies help to decrease carbon dioxide emission. Research has demonstrated that, in fact, TOD strategies can successfully decrease carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles. The finding is very important in Australia because transportation ranks number three as a source of greenhouse gas emissions (Tiwari, Cervero&Schipper, 2011, p. 394).
TOD has a positive impact on sustainability because planning the design addresses the implementation of the contributing factors: transport, land use, density, diversity, and design (Tiwari, Cervero & Schipper, 2011). The DDD of sustainable urbanization was combined with emission amounts and the factors of “avoid, shift, improve and finance (ASIF) to address changes in the components that reduce emissions, provide a coherent framework for the development of a sustainable green town” (Tiwari, Cervero & Schipper, 2011, p. 394). The location of the green town studied was the Bentley Technology Precinct in Perth, a “car-oriented city” (Tiwari, Cervero & Schipper, 2011, p. 394).
Mathur and Ferrell (2013, p. 42) concluded that TOD did impact home sale prices “with an average home sale price increase of $21,000 (or 3.2%) for every 50 percent reduction in the distance between the home and the TOD.” Housing prices were found to be higher if the homes were closer to the TOD.
Future for TOD
Citizens around the US voted for TOD in the 2008 election. That is evident from their votes for billions of dollars worth of bond measures and tax levies to be used for improving transportation infrastructure. In 2008 voters voted in favor of approximately75 percent of the transportation funding programs on ballots. Therefore, the election resulted in a 75 billion dollar investment in the future transportation projects that were approved by the voters (Raphael & Espiau, 2010, par. 1). The result of the local initiatives approved in the 2008 local elections clearly indicates that citizens are looking for alternative transportation and neighborhood designs. The desire of voters for alternatives in transportation is the result of the past decades when car-oriented strategies were the focus of transport planning. The desire for a new transportation system is the result of because so many past decades that centered transportation planning exclusively on car-oriented strategies (Raphael &. Espiau, 2010, para. 2). High pollution levels, bottlenecks of road congestion and high gas prices have been the legacy of building more highways to accommodate one driver vehicles instead of offering mass transportation choices.
Failed transportation planning was strictly was planning focused on car-oriented strategies (Raphael & Espiau, 2010, par. 2). In the past, transportation planning has failed because it has only focused on car-oriented strategies (Raphael & Espiau, 2010, par. 2). Reliance on only one transportation choice has led to high pollution levels, bottlenecks of road congestion and high gas prices.
The federal government took serious note of the voters’ choosing mass transit. President Obama included “$50 billion up-front investment linked to a $476 billion 6 year reauthorization of the surface transportation program and creation of National Infrastructure Bank” in his Financial Year 2013 budget (U.S. Treasury, 2012, p. 1). The Department of the Treasury and the Council of Economic Advisors support the timing of this initiative because of the following benefits;
- “Well-designed infrastructure investments have long-term economic benefits and create jobs in the short run;
- This economic activity and job creation is especially timely as there is currently a high level of underutilized resources that can be used to improve and expand our infrastructure;
- Middle-class Americans would benefit disproportionately from this investment through both the creation of middle-class jobs and by lowering transportation costs for American households; and
- There is strong demand by the public and businesses for additional transportation infrastructure capacity” (Treasury, 2012, p. 1).
In Fig. 1 below, the train station on the left was the focal point for housing development in the South Orange, New Jersey. On the other hand, the light rail system on the left in Fig. 2 was built as part of an urban revitalization project in Houston, Texas. Even with all these new developments in the nation’s transportation infrastructure, “only 50 percent of Americans have access to public transit, and for many it is not a convenient option” (Raphael &Espiau, 2010, para. 3). As communities and city planners become more educated on the subject of
Figure 1- 1South Orange, New Jersey
(Raphael & Espiau, 2010)
Figure 1- 2 Light rail in Houston, Texas
(Raphael & Espiau, 2010)
TOD, they will understand the common sense of the strategy. Until that time, many American urban and suburban areas will use the old-fashioned zoning plans, which put people into single-family units in low-density neighborhoods. “The average American family spends 19 percent of household income on transportation, while those who live near public transit spend only nine percent on transportation” (Raphael &Espiau, 2010, par. 3).
The Project for Public Planning (PPP) noted that in Charlotte, North Carolina efforts to revitalize downtown areas in the state brought “major financial returns” for the community (Raphael &Espiau, 2010, par. 5). An investment in light rail transit has paid off in terms of success for revitalization projects and for increased numbers of riders. Building a station for light rail systems is a draw for developers who understand the positive investment returns that will result. Among the many advantages TOD has to offer, a major contribution is creating jobs.
Transportation for America (T4America) reports that planned transportation construction in 78 American metro areas would provide 6.7 million jobs calculated from “building $240 billion in ready-to-go rail and rapid bus projects (T4America, 2009, p. 2). The Federal Highway Administration published their report “Conditions and Performance” assessment for initiating less new road construction; 14.8 million workers would have jobs renovating America’s roadways and transit systems and bridges with a $512 billion investment over a 5 year period (T4America, 2009, p. 2). Repairing roads and maintaining existing transportation infrastructure create 9 percent more jobs than new road construction (Raphael &Espiau, 2010, par. 9). Transportation for America called for the President and Congress to make possible the following changes
- “Save taxpayer dollars by asking the private developers who reap real estate rewards from new rail stations and transit lines to contribute toward that service” (T4America, 2009, p. 2).
- Transportation for America collected data to show the ways the American people can be benefitted by TOD strategies. For example family budgets are impacted by the difference between living near mass transit and relying on a car. Families who live where mass transit is available spend only 9 percent of their budge on transportation, whereas families who are automobile-dependent spend 25 percent of their budget on transportation costs. (T4America, 2009, p. 2) America saves 4.2 billion gallons of gas per year due to public transportation. Billions more could be spread when Americans have access to public mass transit facilities and safe bicycle and walking paths (Reconnecting America CTOD Report, 2007, CA-27-26-6004).
- Data shows that 541 million hours traveling and 340 million gallons of gas were saved in 2005 by American with access to public transport (Reconnecting America, 2008, “The Real New Starts” report)
- Carbon emissions into the atmosphere are reduced without counting carbon credits or using pollution recovery devices. Instead walking and bicycling do not cause polluting emissions because they do not need internal combustion engines.
- Research on whether neighborhoods with public mass transit or neighborhoods that require commuting in vehicles demonstrate that the first type of neighborhood holds value while the second damages the value of the property (Schalch, 2008).
Many organizations are focused on promoting and creating TOD neighborhoods. Reconnecting America has joined with Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) and Strategic Economies. CNT was organized in 1978, Reconnecting America is a national non-profit organization, and Strategic Economies is a for-profit research and consulting company. Their interest and goals intersect at the desire to develop revitalization strategies for urban neighborhoods. The three organizations are working together under the umbrella of Center for Neighborhood Technology (CTOD). The organizations combine their knowledge in order to promote TOD around the US.
Miguel Garcia, at the Ford Foundation, led a program started in 2002 to advance “mixed-income, mixed-race housing as a strategy to provide housing for low and moderate income people” (Heffernan, 2006, p. iv).
The research has established from the data available for the three Hollywood TOD regions studied, that the projects were successful in terms of affordable housing, mass transit ridership, and land use and income distribution. The research has established guidelines to ensure the successful creation of mixed income neighborhoods. The four foundations of success were identified as (a) “a good design, (b) excellent management, (c) tailoring of income mixing to local housing market conditions, and (d) well-orchestrated delivery of services” (Heffernan, 2006, p. iv).
Data was collected from research projects and white papers already mentioned in the research methodology section. Data on income distribution, land use and Metro ridership between 1990 and 2010 was collected from LA Metro sources. The data evaluated included (a) ridership on the Metro for the stations Hollywood/Highland, Hollywood/Western, and Hollywood/Vine, (b) distribution of land use in Hollywood, and (c) the change in income distribution in the region. The population mix of the area was evaluated by looking at school attendance records that included ethnicity and the land use development of low-income housing.
California
The San Francisco Bay Area is a good example of how ”the combination of unaffordable housing, traffic congestion and long commutes take a heavy toll on the region’s residents, with the heaviest burden shouldered by lower-income households” (GRC, 2007, p. 6). Ironically as housing costs rise the people who can least afford to lose time at work are facing more challenges in reaching their workplace on time. Solving the problem is a complex task because the challenges are daunting, but this is also an opportunity to face the challenge. The Bay area adopted TODs to solve the complex transit and housing problems. Bay area communities worked collaboratively as a community with organizations like Reconnecting America discussed above. The successful use of mass transit in order to evacuate parts of the Bay area during the Loma Prieto earthquake event is one example (Heffernan, 2006, p. vii).
The Department of Treasury in collaboration with the Council of Economic Advisers created a report for President Obama entitled “A new economic analysis of infrastructure investment.” The report has a table that reports the estimated amount of savings in dollars for cities with public transport. San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego are the California cities listed. The following figures are from a July 14, 201l, American Public Transportation Association report focused on transit savings. The figures apply to individual residents in the cities where figures were reported. (U.S. Treasury, 2012)San Francisco estimates are for $1,088 per month of savings, which results in yearly savings of $13, 060. Los Angeles, where Hollywood is located, saves an estimated $893 per month, which computes to $10,717 per year. (U.S. Treasury, 2012) San Diego savings were calculated to be $862 per month resulting in an annual savings of $10,369. (U.S. Treasury, 2012)
Calculations for the amount of operating costs per month in urban regions with a population of at least 500,000 people prove to be interesting when compared to the above numbers. The top 20 American cities where motorists pay more in extra vehicle maintenance due to poor road conditions were considered. (U.S. Treasury, 2012) In Los Angeles, the annual vehicle operating cost was estimated to be $746 annually. (U.S. Treasury, 2012) For San Francisco-Oakland, the amount was only a little bit less than LA at $706 per year. (U.S. Treasury, 2012) San Diego residents spend an estimated $654 per year for their personal vehicle’s operating cost. (U.S. Treasury, 2012)
The average monthly savings from using public transport between the three California cities is $948 per month. (U.S. Treasury, 2012) The annual expenditures from the three same urban areas averaged $702 per year. (U.S. Treasury, 2012) Therefore using public transport for one month each year would save more than enough money to pay the annual mechanics bill for automobile maintenance.
Historically, access to railway service was primarily linked to TOD. In n the US, similar developments were typically “found overwhelmingly in and around heavy-, light-, and commuter-rail stations” (TRB, p. 35). Cities with only bus transit had also joined the trend in the 2000s in order to ease congestion and aid workers in traveling to work. Although railways are less polluting, the use of busses instead of cars decreases the amount of pollution entering the atmosphere. Reducing air pollution has become particularly important to cities since the recognition of the negative impact of greenhouse gases and global warming. The pollution from gasoline engines also has negative impacts such as creating smog. People experience health problems due to allergies and lung problems from automobile and other vehicles’ pollution.
Joint development for transit-oriented neighborhoods has commonly been based upon land-leases and operations cost-sharing. Joint development projects were focused on areas with rail stations as the central feature and the surrounding area filled with a variety of offices, commercial entities and land-use by large institutions (TRB, p. 35). Neighborhoods developed around bus stations have been constructed with public-private joint funding. TBR (2004, p. 35) reported that bus-only locations were often at bus terminals found near the city’s center and were a joint venture between commercial-retail space and intermodal transfer of freight. Intermodal transfer means that retail products and containers are transferred from one mode of transportation to another. So freight containers are transferred from ships to trucks or to trains during their trip to their destination.
TOD offers the following benefits for customers of retail enterprises and tenants living in the area. One of the greatest advantages is the ability to avoid traffic congestion. Secondly, the necessity for the development of so many parking spaces is decreased. According to the Transit Research Board, (2004, p. 413) parking spaces in Hollywood, California were very expensive in 2004, costing and approximately “$30,000 per space.” Therefore investing in TOD makes more sense than building more parking lots and/or parking garages.
Rick Haughey and Ryan Sherriff from the Center for Housing Policy (2010, p.1) examined the “challenges and policy options for creating and preserving affordable housing near transit and in other location-efficient areas.” They specifically evaluated how the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) could facilitate development in partnership with other government agencies in order to encourage TOD. HUD is a member of the interagency effort described next.
HUD could require certification of affordable housing programs so the programs would need to prove they meet Fair Housing Act (FHA) regulations. Several policy options are available to HUD by clearly defining concepts such as the fair return guarantee. A priority to streamline regulations for long-term affordable housing programs is another recommendation from (Haughey& Sherriff (2010, p.26).
HUD, the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) joined to form a Partnership for Sustainable Communities in 2009. The reason the interagency collaboration was formed was to enhance the ability of communities to gain affordable housing and affordable transportation (mass transit) while maintaining a sustainable community. A sustainable community does no or little impact to the environment. The Partnership of Sustainable Communities agreed to six livability principles to use as goals;
- Provide choices for residents in terms of transportation so people will have the option to choose for economical, safe and reliable transit that “promotes public health, reduces greenhouse emissions, decrease dependence on foreign oil” (Smart Growth, 2013)
- Promote affordable housing to all people regardless of their age or income or their race and ethnicity
- Enhance American competitiveness in the world by creating employment centers and educational opportunities access to workers
- Support existing communities with federal funding for TOD, mixed-use development and “land recycling”
- Ensure that federal policies and investment opportunities enhance collaboration, funding, accountability and effectiveness of government so communities are able to make smart energy choices
- Enhance the unique characteristics of all communities by investing in healthy, safe, and walkable neighborhoods—rural, urban, or suburban (Smart Growth, 2013)
Haughey and Sherriff (2010) addressed the many challenges that HUD must overcome in federal projects for TOD. TOD neighborhoods can cause a negative spillover effect into neighboring communities. Communities next door to TOD neighborhoods can be negatively affected by compromised affordability. Some of the federal funding conditions need to be changed to ensure that developers who want to develop affordable housing can compete with market-rate developers for land near mass transit entrances. A way to strengthen and encourage long-term affordability needs to be found. Public housing authorities need incentives to make sure transit and job centers are conveniently located as part of housing vouchers.
Hollywood
The North Hollywood Arts District transit oriented development is a mixed-use bus transit village. The area is located in Los Angeles where the Metropolitan Authority (MTA), Metrolink, and the Antelope Valley Transit Authority offer transportation (TRB, 2004, p. 15). TOD was treated as nodal development until about 2000 when LA and other cities around the country started designing and planning to develop entire transportation corridors for TOD (TRB, p. 18). For example, the City of LA drew up a plan to preserve and expand a commercial boulevard that was linked to 4 Metro subway stations. This plan in particular was targeted for mid-rise housing and civic uses in the Hollywood-Wilshire neighborhood. The plan encompassed a 2.2 square mile area (TRB, p. 18).
LA County Joint projects were constructed with BRT (bus and rail transport). One of the first BRT services offered in the US was the LA Metro Rapid. Logically the service should have drawn TOD, due to the easy accessibility to “surface bus services” but very little development occurred along the corridor in the beginning (TRB, p. 430).
BRT is a hybrid system combing both bus service and rail transit service. Therefore, BRT has been given the nickname of “rubber-tired rail transit” (TRB, p. 430). The advantages of BRT include (a) frequent service, (b) simple route layouts, (c) level boarding and exiting, (d) bus signal priority, (e) reach destination faster because there are not so many stops. These advantages result in better service. The service is reliable and comfortable. The time spent waiting is less, and the travel time to a destination is less than with conventional mass transit (TRB, p. 432).
Hollywood/Western Project
A Metro Line Red entrance was incorporated into the design of the Hollywood/ Western project because the housing area runs parallel and next to the line. The location is a suburban area of the City of Los Angeles. (See fig. A-1) the project was completed in two phases. The Hollywood/Western project added sixty affordable-housing 2-story units with direct access to the Metro Red Line. (See fig. 1) The Hollywood Western phase was completed in 2000 (TRB, 2004, p. 432).
Figure 1- 3Metro Red Line entrance next to affordable housingHollywood, western station
(TRB, 2004, p. 434)
Next another added 70 affordable housing units, but these units were constructed with wooden frames with 3 to 4 stories. A 10,000 square foot area for retail businesses was added so the neighborhood would have easy access to shopping. A childcare center was built within the retail space (TRB, 2004, p. 432).
Hollywood/Highland
Hollywood/Highland is an urban area of LA. The Hollywood/Highland joint project consisted of the construction of retail space equal to 640,000 square feet in area. Seventy five shops and restaurants were constructed in the retail space. Also included were the Kodak Theater, the Grauman’s Chinese Theater (where the Academy Awards are held) and a hotel. In general the retail space consists of retail shops, the theater complex and other entertainment facilities (TRB p. 15). The constructed buildings were all placed with easy access to the Metro Red subway entrance. The transit system offers easy access to the nine million visitors a year so the need for parking spaces is decreased.
Statement of the Problem
Cities throughout the US are experiencing the high costs of growing problems due to traffic congestion and unaffordable housing. Hollywood, Los Angeles County, California has had a major problem with traffic congestion and high priced housing. The traffic system of one car to one passenger has led to traffic jams and difficulty to reaching work on time. Prices of gasoline are rising making the drive to work more expensive. A problem linked with traffic congestion is unaffordable housing. CNT and CTOD reported that many opportunities exist for creating CTOD in American cities (Heffernan et al., 2006). Mixed income neighborhoods with easy access to mass transit, retail and medical services are seen by many as the solution to these problems; therefore TOD has become a trend in many US cities. Data on income distribution, land use and Metro ridership between 1990 and 2010 has been evaluated to understand any changes in Hollywood. The data evaluated are (a) ridership on the Metro for the stations Hollywood/Highland, Hollywood/Western, and Hollywood/Vine, (b) distribution of land use in Hollywood, and (c) the change in income distribution in the region.
Research questions
- Was there a measurable increase in the amount of affordable housing in Hollywood in the time period after the implementation of the TOD?
- Was there a measureable increase in Metro ridership in the time period after the implementation of the Hollywood TOD?
- What measurable changes have occurred to land use policies in the time period after the implementation of the Hollywood TOD?
- How has income distribution changed in the time period after the implementation of the Hollywood TOD?
Operational Definitions
Equitable Distribution of Housing refers to the creation of fair housing strategies. People with fewer advantages can have the same housing opportunities as others who have higher incomes and more advantages. Equitable housing offers residents’ easy access to mass transport so that the distance between home and work is reduced (HUD, 2013). Disadvantaged can refer to people with disabilities, retirees, and those with small incomes. Equitable housing distribution considers the availability of affordable housing in neighborhoods that “promotes sustainable and integrated residential patterns, increases fair and equal access to economic, educational and other opportunities and advances the health and welfare of the residents” according to the Anti-Discrimination center of Metro New York, Inc. in a lawsuit against Westchester County, New York. (STIPULATION AND ORDER of SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL, No. 06 Civ. 2860 (DLC)
Density effect refers to riders’ choice for access mode. The density effects can be evaluated by considering mode shares versus the increasing density/decreasing density. The mode shares can be evaluated by considering walking and biking in one category or in two separate categories, a category for bus access, and another for automobiles.
Mass transport refers tubes, rail and BRT systems located in urban and suburban areas.
Mode shares are calculated as average access mode percentage. For example, mode shares can be evaluated by station type. The average percentages for suburban TOD has been reported to be walking (35 percent), bicycle (2 percent), feeder bus (13 percent), auto drop-off (14 percent) and Auto Park-and-Ride (39 percent). (Levinson et al., 2012, p. 38)
Social awareness of homeowners means that they understand the stabilizing impact of mixed levels of socio-economic residents. In other words, a neighborhood with a range of income levels aids in keeping housing prices from fluctuating.
Transit oriented development means the construction or renovation of retail and residential buildings to create mixed-use neighborhoods with a mixture of income levels within walking distance of mass transport.
Typologies are the general station characteristics. The characteristics include (a) land use intensity, (b) parking availability, (c) feeder transit connections, and (d) pedestrian network quality. An example of using typologies to design access unique to the location is the footbridge, which provides pedestrian access to the Sierra Madre Station, California.
