Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing study- Activity 1 RPC Meeting

November 3, 2017

Overview

2

1. Housing supply and demand analysis

2. Environmental scan

3. Key findings from literature review

Section 1 -Supply Gap Analysis, 2017-2026

3

• Estimate gap between rental supply and demand for

low-income groups over next 10 years

• Data sources:

CMHC completions data

Metro Vancouver Rental Demand Projections

Supply gap analysis, 2017-2026

4

5

• Reviews recent investments, initiatives, policies for

affordable rental housing and public transit

• Provides a regional context for potential partnerships to

create deeper levels of affordability, opportunities to

integrate housing and transit policy

Section 2 – Environmental scan

6

• Key findings:

• ~ $1 billion for affordable housing allocated to Metro

over the next 10 years

• Over $2.5 billion for public transit

• All levels of government are at the table

• Questions remain about how to integrate the two

funding streams

Section 2 – Environmental scan

7

• What have other jurisdictions

have done to promote

affordable housing near

transit?

• What are the policy tools,

emerging/best practices,

policy learning?

Section 3: Literature Review

8

Key concept: Equitable Transit-Oriented Development

“Equitable TOD refers to development and investment

decisions that help households of all incomes have the

opportunity to share in the benefits of walkable, livable,

transit-rich communities” – Hickey, 2013

Literature review: Equitable Transit-Oriented Development

9

• Regional approach

• Need a ‘quarterback’ agency

• Relationships, leadership,

shared visions, buy-in

• Does not happen overnight

Collaboration and Cooperation needed

10

• Partnership of over 100 non-profits,

financial institutions, philanthropy

organizations, businesses,

governments across Puget Sound

region

• Region-wide equitable transit-

oriented development strategy

Example: Growing Transit Communities Partnership -Puget Sound Regional Council

11

• Range of policy tools can be employed to promote mixed-

income rental housing near transit

• Various policy interventions from various partners required

to create affordability.

Specific policy tools

12

Example of policy tools/interventions for senior levels of government

Adapt

housing

programs

Supply-side

housing

programs

Adapt transit

programs

Grants to

facilitate

coordination

Examples of local and regional policy tools

13

Measure Examples

Public land-Various jurisdictions (e.g. King County Surplus Program for

Affordable Housing)

Opportunity sites inventories

-The Association of Bay Area Governments Opportunity

Sites Inventory (San Francisco)

-Portland Housing Bureau

Transit-Oriented Structured Funds/TOD Affordable

Housing Funds

-Denver TOD acquisition fund

-Bay Area Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing Fund

-Puget Sound Regional Equitable Development Fund

Tax-Increment Financing-City of Portland Pearl District

-The City of Atlanta Beltline Allocation District

Transit-Oriented Inclusionary zoning-Massachusetts Smart Growth Zoning Overlay District Act of

2004

Joint Development

-Metro (LA) 35% of all housing units in Metro joint

developments projects must be affordable

-Metropolitan Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) requires 20%

affordable housing on transit owned land.

Bond Financing-Proposition 1C (California)

-City of Austin bond issue

Reductions in Parking requirements-Various jurisdictions (e.g. Denver, Atlanta, Bay Area)

Density Bonusing -Various jurisdictions (e.g. Denver, Atlanta, Bay Area)

Community Land Trusts- Atlanta Land Trust Collaborative (ALTC)

-Urban Land Conservancy (Denver)

Important tool: Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing Funds

14

15

Thank You!

Questions?

Comments?

SENIOR REGIONAL PLANNERRaymond Kan

Regional Planning Committee November 3, 2017

Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing Study

1. About the Study2. Key Findings3. Next Steps

3

Working Definition of Housing Affordability

• Housing costs that do not exceed 30% of pre-tax household income

• The study focuses on households earning less than $50,000. Affordable rent is about $1,300 per month in rent.

4

Housing + Transportation Connection

5

• Research + knowledge transfer• New rental housing supply• Strategic Partners:

• BC Housing• BC Non-Profit Housing Association• TransLink• Vancity

• 5 Activities

About the Study

6

Activity Deliverable StatusActivity 1:• Regional rental housing supply gap projections• Innovative practices

BCNPHA report (ATTACHMENT 1) Completed

Activity 2:• Quantify the relationship between income,

tenure, and transit use

Regional Planning Committee and MVRD Board received findings and communicated to federal, provincial, and regional stakeholders in fall 2016.

Completed

Activity 3:• Mapping inventory of lands under public or non-

profit ownership in transit-oriented locations

Maps and analysis Deferred to 2018

Activity 4:• Financial viability gap analysis of purpose-built

rental housing

Coriolis report (ATTACHMENT 2) Completed

Activity 5:• Knowledge transfer

Communications strategy and key messages for study partners

Completed

7

Key Finding #1:Demand for rental housing, particularly housing affordable to

households earning less $50,000 per year, is not being met across

the region.

Metro Vancouver

8

Key Finding #1:Demand for rental housing, particularly housing affordable to

households earning less $50,000 per year, is not being met across

the region.

BC Non-Profit Housing Association

9

Key Finding #2:Renter households, especially those earning less than $50,000,

are more likely to use transit, and that means improved access

and mobility, and a higher return on investment in transportation.

2011 National Household Survey

10

Key Finding #3:New affordable rental housing is undersupplied because the rents

generated do not cover the costs of development. The challenges

are amplified in transit-oriented locations.

Case Study Sites

• 13 older, low density sites

• Local policy and zoning set out expectations for redevelopment to higher density

• Near Frequent Transit Network

110

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

1 2 3 4

$ P

er s

q.f

t. (

net

)

SURREY COQUITLAM BURNABY VANCOUVER

Wood Frame Construction Cost(No Land or Profit)

Wood Frame

120

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

1 2 3 4

$ P

er s

q.f

t. (

net

)

SURREY COQUITLAM BURNABY VANCOUVER

Wood Frame Construction Cost(No Land or Profit)

Value Supported by Affordable Rent

Wood FrameModelling assumptions:• 60% studios and 1 bedrooms affordable to

households income of $30,000• 40% 2+ bedrooms affordable to household

income of $50,000

130

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

1 2 3 4

$ P

er s

q.f

t. (

net

)

SURREY COQUITLAM BURNABY VANCOUVER

Wood Frame Construction Cost(No Land or Profit)

Value Supported by Affordable Rent

Wood Frame Market Rental Unit Value

Wood Frame

140

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

1 2 3 4

$ P

er s

q.f

t. (

net

)

SURREY COQUITLAM BURNABY VANCOUVER

Wood Frame Construction Cost(No Land or Profit)

Value Supported by Affordable Rent

Wood Frame Market Rental Unit Value

Wood Frame Condo Unit Price

Wood Frame

150

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

1 2 3 4

$ P

er

sq.f

t. (

ne

t)

SURREY COQUITLAM BURNABY VANCOUVER

Concrete Construction Cost(No Land or Profit)

Value Supported by Affordable Rent

Concrete Market Rental Unit Value

Concrete CondoUnit Price

Concrete

16

Key Finding #4:There are creative ways to tackle land and construction costs, but

it remains very challenging to make new affordable rental housing

financially viable.

• Construction Costs• On-site parking requirements• Development charges• Construction financing costs• Wood frame (in neighbourhoods designated for medium density)

• Land Costs• Land at discounted or zero costs• Bonus density

17

Key Finding #5:Initiatives in other jurisdictions may be worth exploring to generate

new affordable rental housing near frequent transit. Existing

actions could potentially be scaled up. Partnerships are key.

• Transit-oriented affordable housing loan funds

• Transit-oriented inclusionary housing policies

• Integration of transportation and housing funding

• Federal tax incentives and grants

• Land trusts

• Property tax incentives

18

Next Steps:

Knowledge Transfer

• Study partners: communications strategy and key messages

• Study webpage

• MVRD Board communication to federal, provincial, and regional actors

TRANSIT-ORIENTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING STUDYhttp://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/housing-

affordability/transit-oriented/Pages/default.aspx

Final Report on the North Shore Corridor Study PilotMARINE-MAIN FREQUENT TRANSIT CORRIDORErin RennieSENIOR REGIONAL PLANNER, METRO VANCOUVERRegional Planning Committee, November 3, 2017

2

• Pilot Project

• Transportation on the North Shore

• Corridor Study Process

• Findings & Outcomes

• What we learned about corridor studies

• Opportunities for TDM

Outline

3

• Metro Vancouver pilot project for the Urban Centres and FTDA Review

• Advance integration of corridors into regional planning policies and monitoring

• Intended to be replicated across the region

Corridor Study Pilot Project

4

Transportation on the North Shore• Leveraging North Shore Area

Transportation Plan

• Advancing the land use and transportation conversation

• Continuing local government integration efforts

5

Introduction• Early 2016- Fall 2017

• Co-Led by Metro Vancouver & TransLink

• Participants: CNV, DNV, DWV, Squamish First Nation, & MoTI

• A collaborative corridor study to coordinate the planning and design for land use, growth, and transit along the Marine Drive-Main Street corridor on the North Shore.

• 2030 time horizon

6

7

1. How do we integrate corridors more effectively into regional planning and monitoring?

2. What level of transit service can be achieved given planned growth and, 3. What can be done to support the performance of the corridor’s land use and

transportation performance indicators?

8

Process: Marine-Main Frequent Transit Corridor Study • 3 Phases:

• Study Area Definition & Policy Context

• Transit Service Design and Corridor Concept

• Corridor Monitoring Program

Phase 1 Funding Announcement gave a 2019 deadline for B-Line

9

Findings• By 2030 the corridor could support a

high-frequency bus-based service with:• Limited stops• Lane segregation• Signal Priority• Stop amenities• Branding • Frequent service

• Recommended: Phase up to Bus Rapid Transit Light

10

Findings• To implement the recommended service

level by 2030 the communities would have to take action:

• Phased approach• Increase bus lane segregation• Implement transit signal priority

measures• Consider right-of-way width • Implement TDM and other transit-

supportive land use strategies (6 Ds).

11

Outcomes of the Pilot Study• Advanced corridor integration into regional planning and monitoring

• Monitoring Program and Corridor Definition

• Furthered the NS ATP and head-start on 2019 B-Line Implementation

12

Marine-Main Metro 2040 Monitoring Program Logic ModelInputs Measures (Key Performance Indicators)

Activities Outputs Outcomes ImpactResources Needed

How resources will be used

Units of service resulting from activities

Changed conditions for project partners

Changes in communities/systems

Metro 2040 RTP North Shore

ATP 10 Year Vision Phase 1

funding

Transit frequency Transit trip time Transit span Land use

designation change Transit-Supportive

Housing Policies

Transit Daily ridership

Transit Peak ridership Dwelling unit growth* Dwelling Unit Density Population Growth Employment growth Retail Development Office Development Housing Tenure Mix Housing Type Mix Kilometres of bike

facility Employment Type Mix

Transit Capacity utilized

Housing + Transportation cost burden

Annual VKT per capita

Population Distribution by Age Group

Household Make-up

Walkability Index Customer

Satisfaction

Mode share Percent of

regional dwelling unit growth located in corridor

Percent of sub-regional employment growth located in corridor

Income Mix

13

14

• Value in thinking across municipal boundaries

• Identification of important interdependencies

• Strengthens lines of communication & connections across disciplines

• Moves conversation forward and readies communities for implementation.

What we learned about corridor studies

• Future corridor studies: incorporate land use and TDM analysis into scope

15

Considering how to integrate corridors more effectively into regional planning• Visually and conceptually makes

sense

• Recognize that growth won’t be ubiquitous across corridor

• Monitoring Program will help us learn more

16

6 Ds of Transit Oriented Communities Density Demand

Management

DistanceThe 6 D's of

Transit Oriented Communities

Destinations

DesignDiversity

• Integrating transit and land use means considering other influencers of ridership besides density.

• These factors also support complete community and Metro 2040 goals.

17

Opportunities for Transportation Demand Management

• Continue to improve walk and bike network

• 2017 Apartment Parking Study

• Transit Oriented Affordable Housing Study (TOAH)

• Move away from Level of Service (LOS) and focus on “people moving capacity”

• Require a multimodal focus from developers

18

Opportunities for Transportation Demand Management

• Employer Engagement

• Market Segmentation Corridor Analysis

• Individualized Marketing Campaigns

• Embrace congestion as incentive for changing behaviour

Thank You

Land Cover ClassificationNEW REGIONAL HIGH-RESOLUTION LAND COVER CLASSIFICATION

Josephine ClarkREGIONAL PLANNER, PARKS, PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTRegional Planning Committee November 3, 2017

Land Cover Extents

Multi-Spectral Satellite Imagery

and LiDAR

Outputs

LiDAR – 2m Hybrid – 5m

• 3-level hierarchy• 14 final classes• Overall accuracy =

87% (hybrid)

Classes and Accuracy

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3Built-Up Buildings

Paved

Other Built

Bare Barren

Soil

Vegetation Tree Canopy Coniferous

Deciduous

Shrub

Grass-Herb Natural

Modified

Non-photosyntheticvegetation

Water

Shadow

Clouds/Ice

Comparison – 5m hybrid and orthophoto

5m hybrid Orthophoto

Urban area (1:3,000)

Rural area (1:3,000)

Effect of LiDAR

5m – no LiDAR 2m – with LiDAR

Limitations• Snapshot in time

• Class confusion

• Small features missed

• Canopy model

Canopy model

Applications• Planning – land use, stormwater

management, drinking water resource management

• Air emission inventorying

• Ecosystem mapping

• Indicators and monitoring

• Ecosystem services assessment

Ecosystem connectivity: Pacific wren (DRAFT)

Landscape indicators of aquatic ecosystem health

Example of 30m riparian zone Example of selected watershed

Next Steps

• Change methodology• Measures

• Canopy cover• Impermeability

• Assessment of further ecosystem services

Questions?

Small features missed