A Guidebook for Improving Transportation Connections for Lowand Moderate-Income Households in Small and Mid-Sized Cities

Creating Connected Communities:

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research
Visit PD&R’s website

www.huduser.org

to find this report and others sponsored by HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R). Other services of 

HUD USER, PD&R’s research information service, include listservs, special interest reports, bimonthly publications (best 

practices, significant studies from other sources), access to public use databases, and a hotline (800-245-2691) for help 

accessing the information you need.
Creating Connected Communities:

A Guidebook for Improving Transportation Connections for Lowand Moderate-Income Households in Small and Mid-Sized Cities

Prepared for: 

U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development 

Washington, D.C.

Prepared by: 

Center for Transit-Oriented 

Development

April 2014
Creating Connected Communities

Acknowledgments

Creating Connected Communities was prepared 

by the Center for Transit-Oriented Development 

(CTOD). The CTOD is the only national nonprofit 

effort dedicated to providing best practices, research, 

and tools to support market-based development 

in pedestrian-friendly communities near public 

transportation. It is a partnership of two national 

nonprofit organizations—Reconnecting America and 

the Center for Neighborhood Technology—and a 

research and consulting firm, Strategic Economics. 

Together, the partnership works at the intersection of 

transportation planning; regional planning; climate 

change; and sustainability, affordability, economic 

development, real estate, and investment. CTOD’s goal 

is to help create neighborhoods where young and old, 

rich and poor can live comfortably and prosper, with 

affordable and healthy lifestyle choices and ample and 

easy access to opportunity for all.

Project Team

Strategic Economics

• Dena Belzer

• Pamela Fanning

• Sarah Graham

• Alison Nemirow

• Daniel Simon

Center for Neighborhood 

Technology

• Sofia Becker

• Cecilia Gamba

• Stefanie Shull

• Kyle Smith 

• Linda Young

Reconnecting America

• Sasha Forbes

• Justin Godard

• John Hughes

• Sarah Kline

• Irving Pham

• John Robert Smith

Project Sponsor

The guidebook was prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of 

Policy Development and Research, Affordable Housing Research and Technology Division. The following personnel 

were on the HUD project management team:

• Luis Borray, Architect

• Elizabeth Cocke, Division Director

• Regina Gray, Research Analyst
Acknowledgments

Creating Connected Communities

Review Panel

HUD and CTOD convened a review panel of national, regional, and local practitioners who have a wide range of 

expertise on transportation, housing, and land use. The panel included the following members:

• J. Barry Barker, Executive Director, Transit 

Authority of River City (Louisville, Kentucky)

• Elaine Clegg, City Council Member and Projects 

Coordinator, Boise City Council and Idaho Smart 

Growth (Boise, Idaho)

• James Davenport, Program Manager, Community 

Services, National Association of Counties 

(Washington, D.C.)

• Chris Estes, President and Chief Executive Officer, 

National Housing Conference (Washington, D.C.)

• Jeff Falcusan, Director, Policy and Program 

Development, National Association of Housing 

and Redevelopment Officials (Washington, D.C.)

• Art Guzetti, Vice President, Policy, American 

Public Transportation Association (Washington, 

D.C.)

• M. Pres Kabacoff, Chief Executive Officer, HRI 

Properties (New Orleans, Louisiana)

• Doug Palmer, Former Mayor of Trenton, New 

Jersey, and Principal, Douglas H. Palmer & 

Associates, LLC (Lawrenceville, New Jersey)

• Ed Rosenthal, Vice President and Director, 

Enterprise Rural and Native American Initiative, 

Enterprise Community Partners (Santa Fe, New 

Mexico)

• Michael Wallace, Program Director, Center 

for Federal Relations, Housing & Community 

Development, National League of Cities 

(Washington, D.C.)

• Chris Zeilinger, Director, National Resource Center 

for Human Service Transportation Coordination, 

Community Transportation Association of America 

(Washington, D.C.)

Disclaimer

The contents of this report are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. government.

Foreword

Creating Connected Communities

Foreword

Creating Connected Communities seeks to bridge the housing-transportation gap by crafting an easy-to-read, 

illustrated guide for local decision-making officials and other interested groups in small-sized and mid-sized 

cities. HUD offers the report as a research-based tool for leaders of small-sized and mid-sized communities. 

The tool will help community leaders better understand and articulate the range of benefits they can realize by 

integrating a multimodal transportation system with affordable housing and by addressing the challenges that 

small-sized and mid-sized cities face in improving mobility and accessibility for their residents.

Local leaders make decisions every day that affect the quality and affordability of transportation and housing 

in their communities, whether deciding to build a new street, repave an existing road, locate a school or park, or 

approve or deny a development proposal. While each decision is made within the context of many unique local 

factors, local officials across the country share many common goals for their communities, such as providing an 

affordable, high-quality life for residents; deploying local resources efficiently; supporting the local economy; and 

strengthening existing neighborhoods. 

This guidebook presents strategies that communities can use to help meet these goals by planning and investing 

in transportation improvements to provide low-income and moderate-income households with affordable, 

convenient, and reliable options for accessing jobs and other essential destinations, such as schools, community 

colleges, health care, and other services and amenities.

By preserving existing affordable housing and planning new affordable housing in places where residents have 

opportunities to walk, bicycle, and take transit to get to work, school, health care, shopping, and parks, so that 

residents can thrive whether they own one car, two cars, or no car.

Katherine M. O’Regan

Assistant Secretary for 

 Policy Development and Research

Creating Connected Communities ix

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments

Executive Summary xi

Creating Connected Communities in Small and Mid-Sized Cities xi

Housing and Transportation Case Studies xii

Roadmap of Goals and Strategies xiii

Chapter I. Introduction 1

Key Terms & Concepts 2

Creating Connected Communities in Small and Mid-Sized Cities 2

Using this Guidebook 3

Chapter II. Transportation and Housing Affordability Link 5

Understanding Housing & Transportation Affordability at the Neighborhood Level 6

What Makes a Connected Community? 7

Housing and Transportation Challenges in Small and Mid-Sized Cities 8

Why Provide Multiple Transportation Options? 10

Why Create Connected Communities? 11

What Does This Mean for My Community? 15

Chapter III. Housing and Transportation Case Studies 17

Summary of Findings 17

Gonzales, California, and the Salinas Valley 20

Traverse City, Michigan 25

Lake Worth, Florida 30

Portland, Maine 36

Lakewood, Colorado 41

Chapter IV. Implementation: What is Next? 45

Strategies are organized within the following five overarching goals: 46

Goal A. Convene Decisionmakers 46

Goal B. Provide Multiple Transportation Options 51

Goal C. Promote Accessible Affordable Housing in Connected Communities 57

Goal D. Support Established Neighborhoods 63

Goal E. Refocus Financial Resources 66

Appendix A. Annotated Bibliography 71

1. Resources Specifically Geared to Small- and Mid-Sized Communities 71

2. Reports That “Make the Case” for Connecting Affordable Housing and Transportation 73

3. Other Resources on Affordable Housing, Jobs, and Transit 75

4. Resources Focused on Tools and Strategies 77

Appendix B. Housing + Transportation Affordability Index Methodology 84
x Creating Connected Communities
Executive Summary

Creating Connected Communities xi

Executive Summary

This guidebook is intended to provide elected officials, 

city staff members, community leaders, and other 

decisionmakers in small and mid-sized cities with a 

menu of strategies for improving the transportation 

choices available to low- and moderate-income 

households. On average, transportation is the 

second largest household expenditure after housing, 

and transportation costs are directly related to a 

key characteristic of housing: location, including 

proximity to employment, schools, and other essential 

destinations. By creating connected communities where 

residents have access to affordable housing and can 

safely and conveniently meet their daily needs on foot, 

bicycle, public transit, or in a car, cities can help reduce 

households’ transportation costs, connect workers to 

jobs, and facilitate upward mobility. Providing access 

to alternative modes of transportation is particularly 

important for households without a car, a category 

that includes 9 percent of all U.S. households and 

18 percent of households earning less than $35,000. 

In addition to improving mobility for households 

with limited access to vehicles, creating connected 

communities with multiple transportation options can 

benefit all residents by promoting health and safety, 

contributing to a more resilient local economy, and 

improving the efficiency of public spending.

Creating Connected 

Communities in Small and 

Mid-Sized Cities

Chapters I and II of the guidebook discuss the benefits 

of creating connected communities in more detail 

and address the specific housing and transportation 

challenges that small and mid-sized cities face. The 

guidebook is tailored to cities with populations of less 

than 250,000, a category that includes a wide range of 

different places—from rural and suburban bedroom 

communities to communities that serve as the central 

cities of their region. Although every place has unique 

characteristics, small and mid-sized cities often (though 

not always) share some common features, including 

the following, that set them apart from their larger 

counterparts:

• Fewer transit options. Transit service may be 

limited to paratransit, on-demand shuttles, or local 

bus, although small cities in larger metropolitan 

areas may be served by regional rail or bus systems.

• Limited city staff capacity. Smaller staff sizes can 

mean that cities have limited capacity to plan 

and invest in significant new pedestrian, bicycle, 

and transit improvements—but it can also mean 

that decisionmaking is more centralized and new 

approaches can be adopted more quickly.

• Limited financial resources. A lack of resources can 

be a particularly acute problem for smaller cities, 

which often rely in part on state revenue sharing 

and may have a limited local tax base. In addition, 

some federal resources that are frequently used to 

address housing and transportation in larger cities 

are less likely to be available in small and mid-sized 

cities. Finally, small cities in a larger metropolitan 

area may face intense competition with their 

neighbors for transportation and other funds that 

are allocated at a regional level.

• Greater reliance on other governmental entities—

including larger neighboring cities, independently 

operated transit authorities, metropolitan planning 

organizations (MPOs)1

, and state and federal 

agencies—for services and funding.

• More affordable market-rate housing, but fewer 

subsidized units.

1 Metropolitan planning organizations are federally 

mandated agencies charged with regional transportation 

planning and allocating federal transportation funding in 

urbanized areas with populations of 50,000 or more.

The average cost of owning a 

car ranges from 

$6,000 to $12,000 year.
Executive Summary

xii Creating Connected Communities

The examples and strategies provided in this guidebook 

are designed to address these specific challenges that 

small and mid-sized cities face. Given the limited staff 

capacity and financial resources of many small and 

mid-sized cities, the guidebook emphasizes looking for 

state, regional, federal, and private-sector partnerships 

that can help expand local capacity and making 

incremental, relatively low-cost changes that can add 

up to significant improvements in the mobility of lowand moderate-income residents. The guidebook also 

encourages cities to consider the needs of residents of 

both market-rate and subsidized affordable housing and 

to include providers of all types of transit—including 

paratransit services and private shuttles operated by 

local business groups or service providers and local 

and regional buses and rail—in the planning process. 

At the same time, however, most of the examples and 

strategies discussed in the guidebook are also relevant 

to larger cities, counties, and other communities 

facing similar challenges concerning the integration of 

transportation with affordable housing.

Housing and Transportation 

Case Studies

This guidebook includes many examples of housing 

and transportation challenges that small and mid-sized 

cities across the country face and presents strategies 

that cities have successfully used to address those 

challenges. In addition, Chapter III provides in-depth 

case studies of five cities that represent a range of 

geographic regions, population sizes, and housing and 

transportation challenges. As summarized below, the 

case studies illustrate some of the key challenges that 

many small and mid-sized cities face, including limited 

transit options, capacity, and financial resources. The 

case studies also illustrate the impact that cities can 

have on residents’ quality of life, household costs, 

and ability to access jobs by expanding transportation 

options and promoting affordable housing in 

connected communities. The various case study cities 

have found success in building partnerships with local, 

state, regional, and federal partners; directing housing 

and transportation investments to support established 

neighborhoods; and making incremental improvements 

as funding becomes available.

Gonzales, California (population 8,500), is a 

small bedroom community in the Salinas Valley, an 

agricultural region on the central coast of California. 

Like many of the other small communities in the 

Valley, Gonzales lacks basic services and amenities, and 

residents must travel 15 miles to the regional center 

of Salinas for employment or to meet daily needs. 

Agricultural workers also struggle to access dispersed 

jobs in surrounding rural areas. In the absence of 

adequate bus service or other transportation options, 

residents who do not or cannot drive have turned 

to informal means of transportation. In response to 

these challenges, the regional council of governments 

established a vanpool program to help agricultural 

workers access employment opportunities, illustrating 

the important role that regional partners can play in 

helping small cities fund and implement transportation 

programs.

Traverse City, Michigan (population 14,700), 

is a small city in the northern region of Michigan. 

The case study compares several affordable housing 

developments that located in different parts of town. 

Two of the projects are located in infill neighborhoods 

where residents can easily access bus stops and jobs, 

and are served by adequate sidewalks for walking and 

biking. In contrast, a third project is located at the far 

northern edge of the city, where residents are relatively 

isolated and have trouble accessing employment and 

basic services and amenities. A multi-jurisdictional 

planning process, funded in part by a HUD 

Community Challenge Planning Grant through the 

Partnership for Sustainable Communities, is helping 

the city and county prioritize where to invest housing 

and transportation resources to take advantage of 

existing assets in established neighborhoods.
Creating Connected Communities xiii

Lake Worth, Florida (population 35,000), is a 

bedroom community in Palm Beach County that 

has implemented a variety of bicycle and pedestrian 

projects to better serve the residents of some of 

its poorest neighborhoods, while also focusing on 

improving the quality of its affordable housing stock. 

The case study illustrates the impact that poor-quality 

sidewalks, other infrastructure deficiencies, and a 

disinvested housing stock can have on residents’ quality 

of life, transportation costs, local property values, and 

the tax base. In addition, the case study shows how 

local, regional, and federal partnerships and low-cost, 

incremental improvements can help cities with limited 

resources address significant housing and transportation 

challenges.

Portland, Maine (population 66,200), is the 

largest city in Maine. The case study focuses on the 

Bayside neighborhood, a former industrial area that is 

undergoing a transformation into an urban gateway 

with significant mixed-income residential and office 

development. By targeting the Bayside neighborhood 

for new, higher intensity, market-rate and affordable 

development in its land use plans, the city of Portland 

is taking advantage of the neighborhood’s proximity 

to downtown, its strong pedestrian connections, and 

the existing concentration of community services and 

amenities. Bringing new residents to the neighborhood 

will also help support additional retail and services over 

time, further enhancing the neighborhood’s walkability 

and strengthening the local economy. The case study 

also illustrates, however, how institutional barriers—in 

this case, the lack of a unified transit authority and 

lack of a state funding source for transit—can pose 

major challenges for integrating affordable housing and 

transportation.

Lakewood, Colorado (population 143,000), a 

Denver suburb, is being transformed by a recently 

opened light-rail line that runs through a number of 

the city’s neighborhoods. The city has worked with the 

transit agency, local housing developers, and other 

regional partners to target affordable housing 

development to the light-rail stations. The case study 

shows, however, that a new transit investment alone is 

not sufficient to make a location accessible to 

households without cars. New sidewalks and other 

improvements are also needed to connect residents to 

transit and other destinations.

Roadmap of Goals and 

Strategies

Chapter IV presents a series of strategies that cities or 

other local governments (for example, towns, villages, 

unincorporated areas, counties) can use to improve 

the connections between affordable housing and 

jobs, schools, shopping, services, and other essential 

destinations in their communities. The strategies are 

organized within the following five goals:

A.Convene decisionmakers. A multitude of different 

departments and organizations play a role in 

providing affordable housing and transportation 

services in any community. By bringing these 

decisionmakers together, cities can expand local 

capacity and help ensure that local, regional, state, 

federal, and community partners are all working 

toward a common goal: improving the quality 

of public services and the efficiency of public 

spending. The following strategies were discussed 

under this goal:
Executive Summary

xiv Creating Connected Communities

1. Align city departments around the shared 

goal of linking housing and transportation 

policy, planning, and investment decisions.

2. Make housing and transportation integration 

“business as usual.”

3. Convene regional, state, federal, and 

community partners.

B.Provide multiple transportation options. Providing 

a variety of transportation options designed to 

meet local transportation needs is critical to 

ensuring that low- and moderate-income residents 

can access employment, schools, parks, and other 

daily destinations. Both people and cities benefit 

when a car is not required for every trip. The 

following strategies are included in this goal:

1. Assess the degree to which the existing 

transportation network meets the needs 

of low- and moderate-income riders, and 

integrate multiple modes of transportation 

into local planning processes.

2. Coordinate with transit providers to improve 

connections between affordable housing and 

jobs, services, and other destinations.

3. Make incremental improvements to facilitate 

walking, bicycling, and taking transit 

throughout the city, prioritizing projects that 

improve connections for affordable housing 

and other low- and moderate-income 

residents.

C.Promote accessible affordable housing in 

connected communities. The location and the 

design of affordable housing can be critical factors 

in determining the ease with which residents 

can access daily needs. Many cities already have 

existing walkable neighborhoods with strong 

connections to jobs and services. By prioritizing 

the preservation of existing affordable housing and 

making it easier to develop new affordable housing 

in these areas, cities can build on existing assets 

and help strengthen local neighborhoods. The 

following strategies were discussed under this goal:

1. Identify existing affordable housing resources 

and neighborhoods with strong existing 

connections.

2. Work with local, regional, and state partners 

to preserve and promote affordable housing 

in connected communities.

3. Facilitate the development of accessible, 

affordable housing located in connected 

communities.

D. Support established neighborhoods. In addition to 

high quality transportation choices and affordable 

housing, residents must also have access to other 

key destinations and services such as medical 

care, jobs, a healthy environment, fresh food, and 

green space. Many cities already have established 

neighborhoods where most of these elements are in 

place; in other cities, more effort may be required 

to ensure that existing neighborhoods offer a full 

range of services and amenities. By focusing on 

enhancing established neighborhoods, cities can 

build on their existing assets, provide additional 

opportunities for existing residents, and improve 

the efficiency of municipal services. This goal 

includes the following strategies:

1. Facilitate compact development patterns.

2. Create “places for people.”

3. Connect the city’s economic development 

strategy with its transportation planning.

E.Refocus financial resources. Focusing public dollars 

on critical needs and improving the alignment 

between housing and transportation investments 

helps to make optimal use of scarce financial 

resources. The following strategies are included in 

this goal:

1. Analyze existing resources and identify 

opportunities to use them more efficiently.

2. Actively seek out new federal and other 

funding opportunities.

3. Develop partnerships and programs to 

facilitate connected communities.
Creating Connected Communities 1

Chapter I. Introduction

Small and mid-sized communities strive for a 

good quality of life for their residents. In many 

places, the challenges of providing affordable 

housing and access to jobs, schools, services, 

and amenities are among the biggest barriers to 

reaching this goal. The purpose of this guidebook 

is to supply elected officials, city staff, community 

leaders, and other decisionmakers in small and 

mid-sized cities with a menu of strategies for 

providing affordable housing residents and other 

low- and moderate-income households with more 

transportation choices in order to create connected 

communities where residents can easily access the 

jobs, schools, and services that they need to prosper. 

This guidebook presents examples and strategies that 

communities can use to help create more connected 

communities by:

• Planning and investing in transportation 

improvements to provide low- and moderateincome households with affordable, 

convenient, and reliable options for accessing 

jobs and other essential destinations such as 

schools, community colleges, health care, and other 

services and amenities; and

• Preserving existing affordable housing and 

planning new affordable housing in places that 

have opportunities for residents to walk, bicycle, 

and take transit to get to work, school, health care, 

shopping, and parks, so that residents can thrive 

whether they own one car, two cars, or no car.

Communities of every size and type can benefit from 

providing affordable housing and multiple 

transportation options to low- and moderate-income 

households. After all, for most households, 

transportation is the second largest expenditure after 

housing. The average cost of owning and operating a 

car in the United States ranges from about $6,000 to 

$12,000 a year.2 Cost may price some people out of 

vehicle ownership; others may not drive because they 

are too young, have health challenges or other 

impairments that prevent them from driving, or prefer 

to walk, bicycle, or take transit instead. Overall, 9 

percent of U.S. households do not own a car. Among 

households earning less than $35,000 a year, this figure 

rises to 18 percent.3

 Providing alternatives to driving—

including safe and accessible options for walking, 

bicycling, taking public transit—can help reduce the 

amount that households spend on transportation, and 

improve access to well-paying jobs both for residents 

2 Depending on gas mileage and miles driven. AAA, Your 

Driving Costs, 2013, http://newsroom.aaa.com/wp-content/

uploads/2013/04/YourDrivingCosts2013.pdf.

3 Calculated by the Center for Transit-Oriented 

Development from U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 2009 National 

Household Travel Survey, 2009, http://nhts.ornl.gov.

Chapter I. Introduction
2 Creating Connected Communities

Chapter I. Introduction

who own a car and those who do not. This in turn frees 

up income for households to build wealth or spend on 

other important needs, promotes upward mobility and 

improved quality of life, and generates spending and 

jobs in the local economy. Moreover, creating more 

connected communities can encourage healthier, more 

active lifestyles, create efficiencies for municipal 

budgets, and contribute to stronger, more resilient local 

economies.

Creating Connected 

Communities in Small and MidSized Cities

This guidebook is tailored to cities with populations 

of less than 250,000, a category that includes a wide 

range of different places—from rural and suburban 

bedroom communities, to communities that serve as 

the central cities of their region. While every place has 

unique characteristics, cities with populations of less 

than 250,000 do tend to share some specific features. 

By comparison with larger cities, small and mid-sized 

cities often (though not always) share the following 

characteristics:

• Fewer transit options. Transit may be limited to 

local bus service, shuttles, or paratransit rather than 

rail or rapid bus, although small cities in larger 

metropolitan areas may be served by regional rail or 

bus systems.

• More limited city staff capacity. Smaller staffs can 

mean that small and mid-sized cities have less 

capacity to plan and invest in new pedestrian, 

bicycle, and transit improvements, but it can also 

mean that decisionmaking is faster and more 

centralized, and that new approaches can be 

adopted more quickly.

• Limited financial resources. A lack of resources can 

be a particularly acute problem for smaller cities, 

which often rely in part on state revenue sharing 

and may have a limited local tax base. In addition, 

some federal resources that are frequently used to 

Key Terms & Concepts

Affordable housing: Market-rate or 

subsidized housing units that cost less than 

30 percent of a low- or moderate-income 

household’s income and provide residents with 

a healthy, safe, and stable place to live. For 

example, to a household earning $40,000 a 

year, affordable housing would cost no more 

than $12,000 a year (or $1,000 a month) 

including rent or mortgage payments as well as 

utilities, insurance, and other associated costs.

Connected communities: Places where 

residents have access to affordable housing and 

can safely and conveniently meet their daily 

needs on foot, bicycle, and public transit, as 

well as in a car.

Low- and moderate-income 

households: Low-income households are 

commonly defined as earning less than 80 

percent of area median income (AMI) as 

determined by HUD for each metropolitan 

region in the country. Moderate-income 

households earn between 80 and 120 percent 

of AMI.

Public transit: Local bus, rapid bus, light 

rail, commuter rail, paratransit, shuttles, and 

other forms of transportation that are available 

to the public.

Small and midsize communities: Cities 

with populations under 250,000. Although the 

information in this guidebook is targeted to 

small and midsize communities, the guidebook 

is also likely to be relevant to larger cities, 

counties, and other communities facing similar 

issues around the integration of transportation 

with affordable housing.
Chapter I. Introduction

Creating Connected Communities 3

address housing and transportation in larger cities 

are less likely to be available in small and mid-sized 

cities. Finally, small cities in a larger metropolitan 

area may face intense competition with their 

neighbors for transportation and other funds that 

are allocated at a regional level.

• Greater reliance on other governmental entities—

including larger neighboring cities, independently 

operated transit authorities, metropolitan planning 

organizations (MPOs)4

, and state agencies—for 

services and funding.

• More affordable market-rate housing, but fewer 

subsidized units.

The examples and strategies provided in this guidebook 

are designed to address these specific characteristics of 

small and mid-sized cities. In particular, the guidebook 

addresses a broad range of transit options, focusing on 

local bus and shuttle services; discusses opportunities 

and challenges related to market-rate and subsidized 

affordable housing; recommends incremental changes 

that cities can make without incurring substantial costs 

or unduly burdening city staff; and encourages cities 

to look for regional, state, and federal partnerships 

that can help expand local capacity. At the same 

time, however, most of the strategies discussed in the 

guidebook are also relevant to larger cities, counties, 

and other communities facing similar issues around the 

integration of transportation with affordable housing.

Using this Guidebook

Following this introduction, the guidebook is organized 

into three main chapters. 

Chapter II discusses the links between transportation 

access and housing affordability, how communities 

of every size and type can benefit from providing 

low- and moderate-income households with multiple 

4 Metropolitan planning organizations are federally 

mandated agencies charged with regional transportation 

planning and allocating federal transportation funding in 

urbanized areas with populations of 50,000 or more.

transportation options, and the specific challenges 

that small and mid-sized cities face. As the second 

largest expenditure for most households after housing, 

transportation is a critical component of affordability.

Chapter III provides case studies of the 

transportation and housing challenges that small and 

mid-sized communities around the country face and 

the strategies that cities have used to address these 

challenges. The case studies profile transportation 

and housing issues that neighborhoods in five small 

and mid-sized cities face: Traverse City, Michigan; 

Gonzales, California; Portland, Maine; Lakewood, 

Colorado; and Lake Worth, Florida. Communities can 

turn to these case studies to better understand how 

transportation and housing affordability issues play out 

in a variety of settings.

Chapter IV provides a series of strategies and actions 

for improving transportation options for low- and 

moderate-income households. Communities can 

select specific strategies and actions from this “menu 

of options” to use in meeting their own specific needs. 

The strategies and actions focus on providing low- and 

moderate-income households with a wide variety of 

transportation options, so people can access their daily 

needs—including work, school, shopping, social and 

recreational activities, and other destinations—without 

relying solely on an automobile.

The appendices include an annotated bibliography 

of resources related to transportation and housing 

affordability (Appendix A) and a description of the 

Housing + Transportation Affordability Index tool used 

in the Chapter III case studies (Appendix B).
4 Creating Connected Communities
Chapter II. The Transportation and Housing Affordability Link

Creating Connected Communities 5

Chapter II. Transportation and Housing Affordability Link

In communities large and small, many families 

face a tradeoff between saving money on housing, 

or saving money and time on transportation. On 

average, transportation is the second largest household 

expenditure after housing, and transportation costs 

are directly related to a key characteristic of housing: 

location. As families move farther from center cities and 

other job centers in search of cheaper housing, their 

transportation costs often increase significantly. For 

low- and moderate-income households, this tradeoff 

can be particularly challenging. As Figure 1 shows, 

the combined cost of housing and transportation 

increases with distance from job centers, with the 

impacts felt most heavily by lower income households.5

Transportation costs vary not only with distance 

from employment, but also with other neighborhood 

characteristics. For example, research shows that while 

5 Based on average expenditures in 28 metropolitan 

areas. Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology and 

Virginia Tech, Housing & Transportation Cost Trade-offs 

and Burdens of Working Households in 28 Metros, July 

2006, http://www.nhc.org/media/documents/chp-pubhl06-cnt-report.pdf

the typical household spends 19 percent of its income 

on transportation, households living in auto-dependent 

neighborhoods spend 25 percent, and households 

living in neighborhoods where they can easily walk, 

bicycle, or take transit to access jobs and other daily 

needs spend just 9 percent.6

6 Based on an analysis of the 2003 Community 

Expenditure Survey microsample data from the Bureau 

of Labor Statistics. Source: Center for Transit-Oriented 

Development, Realizing the Potential: Expanding Housing 

Opportunities Near Transit, April 2007, http://www.ctod.

org/pdfs/2007RealizingPotential.pdf.

Average household 

transportation costs for the 

typical household rose by 33 

percent between 2000 and 

2010, while housing costs rose 

by 52 percent. In comparison, 

median household income 

increased just 25 percent.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

In Central City Near Other

Employment

Center

Away from

Employment

Centers

Households Earning $20,000-$35,000

54%

66% 70%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

In Central City Near Other

Employment

Center

Away from

Employment

Centers

Households Earning $35,000-$50,000

39%

48% 52%

Percent of income spent on transportation Percent of income spent on housing

Figure 1. Percent of Income Spent on Housing and Transportation by Neighborhood where 

Households Live

Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology and Virginia Tech, 2006
6 Creating Connected Communities

Chapter II. The Transportation and Housing Affordability Link

Affordable housing developers also have to 

make tradeoffs between low land costs and high 

transportation costs in deciding where to locate new 

subsidized units. Land located in close proximity to 

employment centers, bus or rail transit, services, and 

amenities is often more expensive than land located at 

the periphery of a city, and may be fragmented among 

multiple different property owners. As a result, many 

developers determine that building in neighborhoods 

where residents can easily walk, bicycle, or take 

transit is not financially feasible, and instead develop 

units in places where residents require one or two 

cars per household to access jobs, schools, and other 

destinations. This can frustrate the purpose of housing 

assistance by increasing households’ expenditures on 

transportation, even as they save money on housing.

Understanding Housing & Transportation Affordability at the 

Neighborhood Level

The maps below illustrate the impact that transportation costs can have on affordability for households, 

using the city of Lake Worth, Florida (one of the case study cities profiled in Chapter III), as an example. 

The map on the left shows average housing costs in each census tract as a percent of area median income 

(AMI). In most of the census tracts, housing costs between 20 and 30 percent of all of area median income; 

in a few, costs are in the range of 30 to 40 percent of AMI. The map on the right factors in transportation 

costs. Together, the combined cost of housing plus transportation falls between 50 and 60 percent of AMI in 

most neighborhoods, indicating that households in Lake Worth that have relatively affordable housing may 

still struggle to pay for the combined cost of housing and transportation.

Housing Costs as a Percent of Area Median 

Income

Housing + Transportation Costs as a Percent of Area Median Income
Chapter II. The Transportation and Housing Affordability Link

Creating Connected Communities 7

Meanwhile, the burden that families face in paying for 

the combined cost of housing and transportation is 

increasing. Despite the recession that began in 2008, 

average household transportation costs for the typical 

household rose by 33 percent between 2000 and 2010, 

while housing costs rose by 52 percent. By comparison, 

median household income increased just 25 percent.7

7 Based on Housing + Transportation (H+T®) Affordability 

Index applied to 2000 Census data and 2006–2010 

American Community Survey data for the 25 largest 

metropolitan areas in the U.S. Costs and expenditures 

are not adjusted for inflation. Source: Center for Housing 

Policy and Center for Neighborhood Technology, Losing 

Many factors are likely contributing to increasing 

transportation costs, including higher gas prices 

and the continued decentralization of employment. 

Studies have found that during the 2000s, jobs 

continued a decades-long trend of shifting away from 

the urban core and moving toward the suburbs in 

virtually all metropolitan areas and industries. Jobs in 

manufacturing, construction, and retail—industries 

Ground: The Struggle of Moderate-Income Households to 

Afford the Rising Costs of Housing and Transportation, 

October 2012, http://www.nhc.org/media/files/

LosingGround_10_2012.pdf.

What Makes a Connected Community?

A connected community is a place where residents 

have access to a range of housing choices and can 

safely and conveniently meet their daily needs on 

foot, bicycle, and public transit, as well as in a car. 

Connected communities have the following 

characteristics:

• Walkable Street Design. Pedestrian and 

bicycle infrastructure and facilities, such as 

sidewalks, bicycle lanes, street trees, lighting, 

and bicycle racks, to make walking or bicycling 

safe and comfortable. A grid-like street network 

and small blocks can also make it easier and 

quicker to walk or bicycle.

• Places for People. Public spaces, including 

streets, parks, plazas, and campuses of 

schools and other institutions, that are safe, 

comfortable, and welcoming, and invite 

people to connect with each other and 

build community. (The process of planning, 

designing, and managing these spaces is known 

as “placemaking.”)

• Connections to Destinations. Residents 

and workers can walk, bicycle, or take public 

transit to access key goods, services, and 

amenities—such as schools, fresh foods and 

other shopping, open space and recreation, 

health care, libraries, and other services—and to 

major employment centers and other regional 

destinations.

The Depot Neighborhood development is 

a proposed affordable housing project in 

Traverse City, Michigan, that exemplifies 

many aspects of a connected community. 

The development is within walking distance 

of a library, a grocery store, and the downtown area, and served by fixed-route bus 

services with good connections to other 

local bus routes. The project will also offer 

a walkable layout and community gathering 

spaces. See the Traverse City case study in 

Chapter III for more information.

Image source: Habitat for Humanity—Grand Traverse Region
8 Creating Connected Communities

Chapter II. The Transportation and Housing Affordability Link

that provide employment to many low- and moderateincome workers—are particularly decentralized.8

Households, including low-income households, 

have also continued to shift to the suburbs. Lowincome people appear to be moving to the suburbs 

somewhat more slowly, however, than the population 

as a whole. When the poor do reach the suburbs, 

they are less likely than higher income households 

to locate in suburbs with significant concentrations 

of employment.9

 The suburbanization of jobs and 

poor households means that low-income workers are 

increasingly likely to be dependent on vehicles to access 

employment, particularly because decentralized jobs 

tend to be challenging to serve with public transit.

Even as an increasing share of the nation’s total 

population and employment has shifted to the suburbs, 

demand for housing in downtowns and other complete 

communities is increasing among some demographic 

groups.10 Demographic shifts—including growing 

populations of seniors and young households as the 

Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and 1964) age and 

the Millennials (born in the 1980s and 1990s) come 

into adulthood—are generating increased demand 

for neighborhoods where residents can walk, bicycle, 

or take transit to access amenities and services. At the 

8 Elizabeth Kneebone, Job Sprawl Revisited: The 

Changing Geography of Metropolitan Employment (The 

Brookings Institution, April 2009), http://www.brookings.

edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/2009/4/06 job 

sprawl kneebone/20090406_jobsprawl_kneebone.PDF.

9 Steven Raphael and Michael A. Stoll, Job Sprawl and 

the Suburbanization of Poverty (Metropolitan Policy 

Program at The Brookings Institution, 2010), http://ctod.

info/assets/0330jobsprawlstollraphael.pdf.

10 Indeed, recent research indicates that between 2010 

and 2011, many major cities (large and small) grew 

faster than their suburbs for the first time in decades. 

The extent to which this is a long-term shift related to 

changing demographics, or a short-term change related 

to housing market and unemployment conditions, 

remains to be seen. William H. Frey, “Demographic 

Reversal: Cities Thrive, Suburbs Sputter,” The Brookings 

Institution, June 29, 2012, http://www.brookings.edu/

research/opinions/2012/06/29-cities-suburbs-frey; Smart 

Growth America, City Versus Suburban Growth in Small 

Metro Areas: Analysis of U.S. Census Data in Metropolitan 

Statistical Areas Under One Million People, December 

2012, http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/

city-versus-suburban-growth-in-small-metro-areas.pdf.

same time, single-person households, roommates, 

and couples without children now account for most 

households in most cities, creating more demand for 

smaller, attached, and rental housing units. In some 

places, these trends are leading to rising rents and 

property values in compact, walkable, transit-served 

neighborhoods, making these neighborhoods less 

affordable for low-income households and putting 

long-term residents at potential risk of displacement.11

Housing and Transportation 

Challenges in Small and MidSized Cities

The housing and transportation challenges described 

above are national issues that cities of all sizes face. 

Indeed, much of the research on the links between 

housing and transportation affordability focuses on the 

country’s larger metropolitan areas. Research specific 

to small and mid-sized cities is more limited, and the 

definition of small and mid-sized cities used in this 

11 Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy, 

Maintaining Diversity in America’s Transit-Rich 

Neighborhoods: Tools for Equitable Neighborhood 

Change (Northeastern University, October 2010), http://

www.dukakiscenter.org/storage/TRNEquityFull.pdf.

Figure 2. A hard-to-see bus stop on the side 

of the road in Omaha, Nebraska provides no 

information about bus routes, making the 

transit system harder to use and less appealing for “riders of choice.”

Image source: Strategic Economics, 2013
Chapter II. The Transportation and Housing Affordability Link

Creating Connected Communities 9

report—cities with populations less than 250,000—

encompasses a wide range of places of many different 

types. Using information from discussions with local 

officials and other available information about small 

and mid-sized cities, however, this guidebook identifies 

a series of factors that sets small and mid-sized places 

apart from their larger counterparts, regarding the 

specific transportation and housing challenges they 

face.12

First, transit options in many small and 

mid-sized communities are limited to 

paratransit, on-demand shuttles, or local bus. 

Many small and mid-sized cities have more autooriented land use patterns and lower population 

densities, and they experience less traffic congestion 

compared with larger cities. As a result, there may be 

reduced pressure to encourage alternative modes of 

transportation; transit options may be limited to local 

12 For more on the unique challenges facing midsized cities, see: City of Rochester, NY, “The Mid-size 

City: Exploring Its Unique Place in Urban Policy. A 

Summary of the Rochester Conversation on Mid-Size 

Cities” (Rochester, NY, 2002), http://www.livable.org/

storage/documents/reports/Other/The_Mid-Sized_

City_Exploring_its_Unique_Place_in_Urban_Policy.pdf; 

Reconnecting America, Midsize Cities on the Move: A 

Look at the Next Generation of Rapid Bus, Bus Rapid 

Transit, and Streetcar Projects in the United States, 

December 2012, http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/

assets/Uploads/20121206midsizefinal.pdf.

bus service, shuttles, or paratransit (rather than rail or 

rapid bus); and transit ridership may be dominated by 

“riders of necessity”—that is, people with few other 

options—rather than “riders of choice.” The lack of a 

broad ridership base can lead to lower farebox revenues 

and limited public support for transit, which in turn 

reduces the quality of the service that transit agencies 

can provide and further undermines the system’s 

usefulness and appeal to riders. As a result, walking 

and bicycling can serve an even more 

important role in providing alternatives to 

the automobile in small and mid-sized 

communities than in larger ones with more 

developed transit systems. Smaller communities 

may lack support for investing in sidewalks and bike 

lanes, however, because most people expect to drive 

everywhere they go and may not consider biking or 

walking to be an essential form of transportation.

Figure 4. The unincorporated Oakhurst area 

outside Tulsa, Oklahoma, is an impoverished 

area where nearly one-half (47 percent) of 

households earn less than $35,000 a year, 

and one in five residents do not own a car. 

The neighborhood has no sidewalks or streetlights in its residential area, however, and it is 

not served by public transit. The community 

was recently the subject of a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, Building 

Blocks for Sustainable Communities technical 

assistance workshop on Supporting Equitable 

Development, which convened representatives from county, state, and regional departments to develop strategies for addressing 

the community’s needs.

Image source: Strategic Economics, 2013

Figure 3. A bus stop in Tulsa, Oklahoma is not 

connected to any sidewalks, making it difficult for potential riders—particularly disabled 

riders—to access the station.

Image source: Brooke Allen, 2013
10 Creating Connected Communities

Chapter II. The Transportation and Housing Affordability Link

Small and mid-sized communities may also 

have more limited staff capacity and financial 

resources compared with their larger 

counterparts. Smaller staffs can mean that cities 

have limited capacity to plan and invest in significant 

new pedestrian, bicycle, and transit improvements—

but it can also mean that decisionmaking is more 

centralized and new approaches can be adopted more 

quickly. Although many cities around the country 

are facing fiscal challenges, a lack of resources can be 

a particularly acute problem for smaller cities, which 

often rely, in part, on state revenue sharing and may 

have a limited local tax base. In addition, some federal 

resources that are frequently used to address housing 

and transportation in larger cities are less likely to be 

available to small and mid-sized cities. For example, 

the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 

program, a flexible source of funds for housing and 

community development needs, allocates grant funding 

to cities with populations of at least 50,000 and to 

other “entitlement” communities13 on an annual, 

formula basis, while smaller communities must 

compete for funds through state or county agencies. 

Finally, small cities in a larger metropolitan area may 

face intense competition with their neighbors for 

transportation and other funds that are allocated at a 

regional level.

Small and mid-sized cities are often 

particularly reliant on counties, transit 

agencies, regional government, state 

departments of transportation, and other 

entities not only for funding, but also for 

services. For example, in many small towns, Main 

13 CDBG funds are provided annually on a formula basis 

to “entitlement” communities, which include principal 

cities of metropolitan statistical areas, or MSAs; other 

metropolitan cities with populations of at least 50,000; 

and qualified urban counties with populations of at least 

200,000 (excluding the population of entitled cities). 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

“Community Development Block Grant Entitlement 

Communities Grants,” accessed April 15, 2013, http://

portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/

comm_planning/communitydevelopment/programs/

entitlement.

Street is a highway under the control of the state 

department of transportation, which not only paves 

and maintains it, but also makes decisions about 

widening the road.

On the housing side, many small and mid-sized 

cities benefit from having lower housing costs overall 

compared with those in some larger cities. Worker 

incomes may also be lower, however, and families 

can still struggle with housing cost or quality. Some 

low- or moderate-income residents may find that the 

only housing they can afford is of poor quality or is 

unsafe. Other households may pay more to rent than 

they would to own, but struggle to save up a sufficient 

downpayment to buy a house. In cities of all sizes, 

many low- and moderate-income homeowners have 

struggled with foreclosures in recent years, while others 

are “under water” on their mortgages, owing more than 

the market value of the home. Substandard, foreclosed, 

or abandoned housing can affect not just individual 

households, but also the entire neighborhood, dragging 

down the property values of adjacent housing units and 

affecting the community’s overall quality of life.

Why Provide Multiple 

Transportation Options?

Walking, bicycling, and 

transit are critical modes 

of transportation for 

many people. For some, 

this is a lifestyle choice; 

for others, a necessity. 

After all, the cost of 

owning and operating 

a car ranges from about 

$6,000 to $12,000 a 

year.14 While cost may price some people out of vehicle 

ownership, others may not drive because they are too 

young, too old, or disabled. Overall, 9 percent of U.S. 

households do not own a car. Among households 

14 Depending on gas mileage and miles driven. AAA, Your 

Driving Costs.

The average 

cost of 

owning a car 

ranges from 

$6,000 to 

$12,000 

a year.
Chapter II. The Transportation and Housing Affordability Link

Creating Connected Communities 11

earning less than $20,000 a year, this figure rises to 

26 percent (Figure 5).15 For these households, having 

access to alternative modes of transportation is critical 

for getting to work, school, shopping areas, healthcare 

providers, or the park.

Even for households that do own a car, being able to 

walk, bicycle, or take a bus for some trips can help 

ensure that everyone can get where they need to go. 

Households take many types of trips during the course 

of a day or week, traveling to and from work, school, 

shopping, and many other destinations. Different types 

of trips may require different transportation modes 

depending on where the destination is located. For 

example, in just one household on a given day, one 

parent might take a commuter bus to get to a job across 

town; the other parent might drive to work and drop 

off a young child at day care on the way; a school-aged 

child might walk or bike to school; and a grandparent 

could take a local bus or shuttle to a healthcare 

appointment or community center. For seniors or 

disabled people who cannot drive, being able to walk or 

take transit to their destinations may be a lifeline, 

allowing them to access critical services and helping 

them to avoid social isolation.

Beyond fulfilling basic transportation needs, walking, 

bicycling, and taking transit can benefit people’s health 

and the environment. People who live in places with a 

higher concentration of jobs and households, a more 

connected roadway, sidewalk, and bicycle network 

system, and transit access tend to walk and bicycle 

more. 16 This increased physical activity may in turn 

lead to better physical fitness, lower rates of obesity and 

other health problems, and reduced greenhouse gas 

emissions and other air pollution levels.17

15 Calculated by the Center for Transit-Oriented 

Development from U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 2009 National 

Household Travel Survey.

16 Lawrence D. Frank, Sarah Kavage, and Todd Litman, 

Promoting Public Health through Smart Growth (Smart 

Growth BC), accessed April 8, 2013, http://www.vtpi.org/

sgbc_health.pdf.

17 Ibid.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

P

erc

e

nt of t

otal h

o

use

h

olds

Household income

2 or more vehicles 1 vehicle No vehicle

Figure 5. Vehicle Ownership by Household 

Income

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway 

Administration, 2009

Why Create Connected 

Communities?

By ensuring that low- and moderate-income residents 

have access to high-quality affordable housing and can 

get to where they need to go, local governments can 

help improve quality of life for their residents, build a 

stronger, more resilient local economy, and improve the 

efficiency of public spending. This section summarizes 

each of these three categories of benefits in turn, 

drawing on the research presented above on the links 

between transportation and housing affordability.

4. Improved Quality of Life

Providing households with affordable housing and 

transportation options can facilitate upward mobility, 

reduce dependency on the automobile, and promote 

public health and safety.

• Facilitate upward mobility. Providing lowand moderate-income households with many 

different transportation options and opportunities 

for affordable housing can help families achieve 
12 Creating Connected Communities

Chapter II. The Transportation and Housing Affordability Link

upward mobility by reducing the combined cost 

of housing and transportation. As discussed above, 

transportation costs are on average the second 

largest household expenditure after housing, 

and can vary significantly by location and land 

use context. Households living in connected 

communities with access to transit and a mix of 

jobs and services spend just 9 percent of their 

household budgets on transportation, compared 

with 19 percent for the average U.S. household.18

The savings from living in a connected community 

are particularly important to low- and moderateincome households, which tend to spend a higher 

share of their household income on transportation. 

For example, transportation accounts for 55 

percent of the budget of an average very-lowincome household, compared with less than 9 

percent of a high-income household’s budget.19

Low- and moderate-income households that can 

spend less on transportation will have more money 

to invest in education or job training, and to build 

wealth and save for homeownership.

• Reduce dependency on the automobile.

Providing alternatives to the private automobile, 

so that residents can access jobs, schools, health 

care, and other important goods and services 

with or without a car, can benefit everyone in the 

community by reducing household transportation 

costs and encouraging increased physical activity. 

For households that do not have access to a private 

automobile, alternative modes of transportation can 

be essential to finding and keeping a job, arriving 

to school on time, accessing health care, and taking 

care of other daily needs

• Promote public health and safety. Providing 

safe, convenient, and appealing options for walking, 

bicycling and taking transit facilitates a more 

active lifestyle. A wider range of transportation 

options can also improve mobility for the elderly 

and disabled, enabling people to remain active in 

their communities and access health care and other 

goods and services.

5. More Resilient Local Economy

Affordable housing and bicycle, pedestrian, and transit 

investments can help create jobs and spending in the 

local economy and make the local economy more 

resilient, adaptable, and competitive.

• Enhance economic resiliency and 

competitiveness. Creating connected 

communities can make small and mid-sized 

cities more competitive, adaptable, and resilient 

to demographic and economic change. As the 

example, the Town of Hamburg in upstate New 

York illustrates (Figure 6) how investing in 

walkable, people-friendly places can help make 

a city more attractive to employers, residents, 

and visitors alike. These types of “placemaking” 

strategies have become particularly important in 

helping small and mid-sized cities compete as 

jobs and workers have become more mobile, and 

increasingly likely to select locations based on 

quality of life. For example, workers—particularly 

younger workers—are increasingly likely to prefer 

18 Center for Transit-Oriented Development, Realizing the 

Potential: Expanding Housing Opportunities Near Transit.

19 The expenditure percentages are based on weighted 

average numbers for households for each income level 

in each tract for the 28 metropolitan areas analyzed. 

Transportation costs are calculated based on Census 

2000, Census Transportation Planning Package 2000, 

and local transit data. Center for Neighborhood 

Technology and Virginia Tech, Housing & Transportation 

Cost Trade-offs and Burdens of Working Households in 

28 Metros.
Chapter II. The Transportation and Housing Affordability Link

Creating Connected Communities 13

living in neighborhoods with good access to public 

transit, shopping, and other activities, and to prefer 

living in a smaller home with a shorter commute 

rather than a larger home with a longer commute.20

Employers also place a high value on transportation 

connectivity and affordable housing. For example, 

a 2007 national survey of 300 companies found 

that 69 percent of larger companies (those with 100 

20 Robert Krueger, “Where Americans Want To Live: 

New ULI Report, America In 2013, Explores Housing, 

Transportation, Community Preferences Survey Suggests 

Strong Demand for Compact Development,” Urban Land 

Institute, May 15, 2013, http://www.uli.org/press-release/

america2013/.

or more workers) believed a long commute time 

increases employee stress, and 67 percent reported 

that lack of affordable housing was negatively 

affecting their ability to retain qualified entry-level 

and mid-level employees. 21

• Create jobs and spending in the local 

economy. Investing in pedestrian, bicycle, and 

transit infrastructure can help generate jobs and 

spending in the local economy. For example, a 

21 Urban Land Institute, “Lack of Affordable Housing Near 

Jobs: A Problem for Employers and Employees—New 

Survey from ULI Looks at Impact of Commuting,” Press 

Release, June 4, 2007, http://www.housingcolorado.org/

images/uploads/47ab69762a6aa.doc.

Figure 6. US Route 62, the Main Street of Hamburg, New York near Buffalo. In 2009, the New 

York State Department of Transportation worked with community members to redesign the 

street and implement traffic-calming measures including narrower traffic lanes, on-street park- ing, and “safety lanes” that provide space for drivers to open their doors safely and also serve 

as bicycle lanes. The street redesign has made the street safer—in the 2 years since the project 

was completed, car accidents have dropped by 66 percent—and helped the town halt a 30-year 

economic decline. Route 62 has become a successful, pedestrian-oriented shopping street. In 

addition, between 2005 and 2009, property values along the street more than doubled, while 

the annual number of building permits in the town rose from 15 to 96 during the same period.

Source: Dennis Gaffney, “Widen Main St.? Community Had Other Ideas, and Thrived,” New York Times, August 16, 2013, sec. N.Y./Region, 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/17/nyregion/widen-main-st-community-had-other-ideas-and-thrived.html

Image source: New York State Department of Transportation, 2009
14 Creating Connected Communities

Chapter II. The Transportation and Housing Affordability Link

2011 study found that for $1 million invested, 

bicycle infrastructure projects create about 11 

jobs within the state where the project is located, 

while pedestrian projects create about 10 jobs. 

By comparison, roadway-only projects with no 

bicycle or pedestrian facilities create an average 

of just under 8 jobs during construction (Figure 

7).22 These differences likely reflect the fact that 

a greater portion of spending on bicycle and 

pedestrian projects goes to labor-intensive activities 

such as engineering, design, and construction, 

while roadway projects devote more spending to 

mechanized construction equipment, asphalt, and 

other equipment and materials. Other researchers 

have calculated that every $1 billion invested in 

public transit supports more than 36,000 jobs.23

6. More Efficient Use of Public Funds

Finally, by integrating transportation and housing 

planning and investments, communities can help 

improve the efficiency of government spending by 

22 Heidi Garrett-Peltier, Pedestrian and Bicycle 

Infrastructure: A National Study of Employment Impacts 

(Political Economy Research Institute, University of 

Massachusetts, Amherst, June 2011).

23 American Public Health Association, At the Intersection 

of Public Health and Transportation: Promoting Healthy 

Transportation Policy (Washington, DC), accessed June 

11, 2013, http://www.apha.org/NR/rdonlyres/43F10382-

FB68-4112-8C75-49DCB10F8ECF/0/TransportationBrief.

pdf.

reducing costs, increasing revenues, and stabilizing 

transit ridership.

• Improve the efficiency of government 

spending on infrastructure and services.

By coordinating transportation planning and 

investment with housing and land use decisions, 

local governments can potentially improve the 

efficiency of government spending on infrastructure 

and services. Compared with development in 

conventional suburban neighborhoods, new 

development in compact, connected neighborhoods 

with a mix of housing and transportation options 

tends to require smaller upfront infrastructure 

investments and save local governments money on 

the provision of services such as police, fire, and 

street maintenance.24

• Increase revenues for local governments.

Many of the economic benefits described above, 

including increased local spending, new jobs, and 

property value increases, can also generate higher 

revenues for local governments in the form of 

increased property, sales, and business tax revenues. 

These increased revenues come from new economic 

activity, rather than from higher tax rates.

24 Smart Growth America, Building Better Budgets: A 

National Examination of the Fiscal Benefits of Smart Growth 

Development (Washington, DC, May 2013), http://www.

smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/building-betterbudgets.pdf.

Figure 7. Jobs Created per $1 Million in Infrastructure Spending, by Infrastructure Type

Source: Garrett-Peltier, 2011
Chapter II. The Transportation and Housing Affordability Link

Creating Connected Communities 15

• Stabilize transit ridership and increase 

farebox revenues for transit agencies, 

enabling better transit service. A 2007 study 

that compiled results from 150 surveys conducted 

by public transit agencies from across the country 

found that 20 percent of transit riders report 

household incomes of less than $15,000 a year, 

and 45 percent report incomes between $15,000 

and $49,999.25 By ensuring that affordable housing 

residents can easily access the local bus or other 

transit options, transit agencies can help stabilize 

their ridership base. This in turn can generate more 

revenues from transit fares, increase competitiveness 

for federal grants, and spread the cost of operating 

the transit system across many users, enabling 

transit agencies to provide better service.26

What Does This Mean for My 

Community?

The appropriate strategy for integrating transportation 

and affordable housing will be different in every city 

depending on many factors, including the city’s role 

within its region,27 population size, demographic and 

employment characteristics, historic land use patterns, 

and transit availability. To help communities 

think about the strategies that may be right 

for them, this guidebook qualitatively groups 

small and mid-sized cities into three general 

categories. Note that these place types represent 

points on a continuum, rather than exclusive categories. 

A city could have characteristics of more than one place 

type at any given time, or transition between categories 

over a period of years.

25 American Public Transportation Association, A Profile 

of Public Transportation Passenger Demographics and 

Travel Characteristics (Washington, DC, May 2007), 

http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/

transit_passenger_characteristics_text_5_29_2007.pdf.

26 Reconnecting America, Locating Affordable Housing 

Near Transit: A Strategic Economic Decision, Policy Brief, 

September 2012, http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/

assets/Uploads/20120904AHpolicybrief.pdf.

27 A city’s region is typically defined as the metropolitan 

or micropolitan statistical area as delineated by the U.S. 

Office of Management and Budget.

• Regional centers. Regional centers serve as 

the administrative, cultural, and/or employment 

center for a region, and often attract incommuting workers from across the region. These 

cities typically have a range of employers and 

institutions such as state or county government 

offices, hospitals, universities, or museums. 

Regional centers often have a significant influence 

on regional transportation policy and land 

use planning by virtue of their size relative to 

neighboring cities, and because state, county, and/

or other administrative offices are often located in 

the regional center. Chapter III of this guidebook 

includes case studies of two small and midsized regional centers: Traverse City, Michigan, 

and Portland, Maine (populations 14,800 and 

65,900, respectively). Other examples include 

Taos, New Mexico (population 5,700), Greenville, 

South Carolina (population 60,400), Lansing, 

Michigan (population 114,600), and Boise, Idaho 

(population 210,000).

• Supporting cities. Supporting cities do not 

serve as the center for their regions, but still have 

a historic downtown and/or some employment in 

addition to resident-serving retail. Some workers 

who live in these cities also work there, while 

others commute to a regional center or other 

supporting city for employment. In contrast to 

regional centers, supporting cities may face more 

competition for resources within the region, and 

may be more dependent on state or county agencies 

for funding. The Lakewood, Colorado (population 

144,400) case study in Chapter III illustrates 

some of the challenges and opportunities that 

supporting cities face in integrating transportation 

and housing. Additional examples include Zion, 

Illinois (24,500) outside of Chicago, Springfield, 

Oregon (59,700) adjacent to Eugene, New Britain, 

Connecticut (73,300) in the Hartford region, and 

Tacoma, Washington outside of Seattle (200,700).
16 Creating Connected Communities

Chapter II. The Transportation and Housing Affordability Link

• Bedroom communities. Bedroom communities 

typically do not have a major employment center. 

Commercial space in these cities consists primarily 

of retail and personal services serving local 

residents. Most workers who live in these cities 

commute to other places for work. Like supporting 

cities, bedroom communities are typically more 

dependent on state or regional agencies for 

resources than are regional centers. Chapter III 

profiles two bedroom communities: Gonzales, 

California (population 8,300), and Lake Worth, 

Florida (population 35,300). Other examples 

include Castle Shannon, Pennsylvania (population 

8,300), in the Pittsburgh metropolitan area; 

Boardman, Ohio (population 35,400), outside 

of Youngstown; and Highlands Ranch, Colorado 

(population 96,700), in the Denver area.

Understanding a community’s role within its region 

can help decisionmakers think about the transportation 

connections that residents may need to reach job 

opportunities, community colleges, healthcare centers, 

or other essential destinations. Other transportation 

connectivity needs may depend more on the land 

use context in a specific neighborhood than on the 

city’s overall role in the region. The following chapter 

further illustrates the various types of connections that 

different communities may need to consider to expand 

transportation options for low- and moderate-income 

residents, depending on the city’s position in the region 

and on conditions in particular neighborhoods.

Figure 8. Three case study cities profiled in Chapter III: Portland, Maine (regional center), Lake- wood, Colorado (supporting city), and Gonzales, California (bedroom community).

Image sources: Reconnecting America, 2013.
Creating Connected Communities 17

Chapter III. Housing and Transportation Case Studies

Chapter III. Housing and Transportation Case Studies

This chapter presents five case studies of small and midsized communities that are facing a variety of challenges 

related to connecting affordable housing with jobs, 

schools, services, and amenities. The case studies 

illustrate how housing affordability and transportation 

connections can help sustain a high quality of life 

for residents, deploy local resources more efficiently, 

and support the local economy. The case studies also 

demonstrate some of the strategies that cities can use 

to improve affordability and connectivity for their 

residents, and the importance of building on existing 

assets and tailoring strategies to the specific issues and 

conditions in any given community.

The five case study cities were selected to represent a 

range of different place types, geographic regions, and 

population sizes (Figure 9). Within each city, the case 

studies focus on one or two neighborhoods and/or 

affordable housing developments. The following case 

study cities were selected:

• Gonzales, California, a small bedroom 

community in the agricultural Salinas Valley.

• Traverse City, Michigan, a regional center 

located on Lake Michigan.

• Lake Worth, Florida, a low-income bedroom 

community in Palm Beach County.

• Portland, Maine, a regional center and the 

largest city in Maine.

• Lakewood, Colorado, a supporting city outside 

of Denver.

The case studies draw on data from the Housing + 

Transportation Affordability Index tool and the U.S. 

Census Bureau,28 interviews with local stakeholders, 

and recent articles and planning documents. Appendix 

B provides a description of the Housing + 

28 The Census Bureau data are from the 2000 and 

2010 Decennial Censuses and the 2007–2011 American 

Community Survey.

Transportation Affordability Index, which was used to 

develop the maps included throughout the case studies.

Figure 9. Case Study Cities by Place Type and 

Population Size

Case Study Community Place Type Population 

(2010)

Gonzales, California* Bedroom community 8,200

Traverse City, Michigan Regional center 14,700

Lake Worth, Florida Bedroom community 35,000

Portland, Maine Regional center 66,200

Lakewood, Colorado Supporting city 143,000

*The Gonzales case study also includes a discussion of issues in 

the broader Salinas Valley region of California.

Summary of Findings

The five case studies presented in this chapter cover a 

wide variety of places facing different transportation 

and housing affordability challenges. Taken together, 

however, the case studies illustrate the following 

important lessons for local leaders to keep in mind as 

communities work toward improving the integration of 

transportation and housing:

• Many different departments, agencies, 

and organizations play a role in housing 

and transportation decisionmaking, 

and all must have a place at the table in 

order to create connected communities. 

This is particularly true in small and mid-sized 

cities, where many state and local agencies are 

often involved in providing services. For instance, 

in Portland, multiple transit agencies serve the 

region and must all work together and with 

the city to improve connectivity for residents. 

The Traverse City case study demonstrates that 

affordable housing developers must also be part of 

the discussion, since developers make the ultimate 

decisions about where housing actually gets built. 

The cities of Lakewood and Denver, along with 

their housing authorities and the regional transit 
18 Creating Connected Communities

Chapter III. Housing and Transportation Case Studies

agency, have demonstrated a commitment to 

collaboration by creating a multijurisdictional 

working group to coordinate their efforts. Forming 

partnerships with regional agencies can also help 

expand local capacity, a particular benefit in small 

and mid-sized communities where limited resources 

and staff time can limit cities’ abilities to take on 

major new projects.

• Providing a variety of transportation 

options targeted to local needs is critical to 

ensuring that low- and moderate-income 

residents can access employment, schools, 

parks, and other daily needs. In small and 

mid-sized cities, traditional transit (that is, bus 

or rail) options may be limited and may need 

to be supplemented with more flexible options. 

For example, in Gonzales, low-income residents 

rely on regional bus service to access services and 

employment in the region’s center city or depend 

on vanpooling to reach dispersed agricultural 

jobs. In Lake Worth, many senior residents rely 

on the county’s paratransit service. At the same 

time, children make up a particularly high share 

of the population in the Tropical Ridge and Royal 

Poinciana neighborhoods, so providing safe routes 

for walking or bicycling to schools and parks is 

particularly critical.

• The types of transportation options that 

residents need can vary, depending on the 

city’s position within the broader region. 

For instance, in Traverse City, Michigan, a regional 

center, low-income residents who live in housing at 

the periphery of the city struggle to get downtown 

and to other areas in the center of the city where 

services and jobs are concentrated. In contrast, in 

a bedroom community like Gonzales, California, 

low-income residents without cars need alternative 

options for accessing employment, health care, 

and shopping located 15 miles away in the region’s 

main city of Salinas.

• Land use and transportation decisions 

play an important role in determining 

the ease with which residents can walk, 

bicycle, or take public transit to access 

essential daily needs. For instance, by targeting 

the Bayside neighborhood for new, higher intensity, 

market-rate and affordable development in its land 

use plans, the city of Portland is taking advantage 

of the neighborhood’s proximity to downtown and 

its existing concentration of community services 

and amenities. Because of the neighborhood’s 

location, land use characteristics, trails, and 

sidewalks, new residents who move to the 

neighborhood will be able to easily walk or bicycle 

to work, medical care providers, jobs, grocery 

stores, and green space. In addition, by bringing 

new residents to the neighborhood, the new higher 

intensity development will help support additional 

retail and services over time, further enhancing the 

neighborhood’s walkability.

• To provide low-income residents with 

opportunities to achieve upward mobility, 

local officials and developers should 

consider location and transportation 

accessibility in selecting sites for new 

affordable housing. In the Orchard View 

Terrace development in Traverse City, for example, 

some residents face difficulties accessing jobs 

and other daily needs because of the isolated 

location of the housing development. In contrast, 

residents in more centrally located affordable 

housing in Traverse City can easily access jobs, 

healthy food, schools, and the downtown by using 

public transportation and bike and pedestrian 

paths. Better access to these essential destinations 

can make it easier for residents to participate 

in the labor force and help reduce household 

transportation costs, allowing them to build 

wealth and save for education, job training, or 

homeownership.
Creating Connected Communities 19

Chapter III. Housing and Transportation Case Studies

• By looking for partnerships and making 

relatively low-cost improvements, agencies 

can make their limited financial resources 

stretch farther. The Lake Worth case study 

shows how cities can partner with local, state, 

and regional agencies and with foundations and 

other community partners to fund and implement 

housing and transportation projects. Lake Worth 

has also found that low-cost projects, such as 

striping bike lanes, can significantly affect residents’ 

lives.

Building on the lessons from the case studies, the 

following chapter provides a menu of actions that 

local leaders can take to help improve the connections 

between transportation and affordable housing in their 

own communities.
20 Creating Connected Communities

Chapter III. Housing and Transportation Case Studies

Gonzales, California, and the Salinas Valley

The Salinas Valley communities include Salinas, the largest city in Monterey County, 

and four smaller cities with a large low-income population and agricultural 

workforce. The smaller communities tend to lack basic services and amenities, and 

residents must travel to Salinas for employment or to meet daily needs. Limited 

transportation options within the Valley, however, restrict access for many lowincome residents.

The Salinas Valley is an agricultural region in south 

Monterey County along the central coast of California. 

The city of Salinas, with roughly 150,000 people, 

is the largest city in Monterey County. The valley 

also includes four smaller cities—Gonzales, Soledad, 

Greenfield, and King City—that stretch inland along 

Highway 101, with a distance of about 50 miles 

separating Salinas at the north from King City to the 

south (Figure 10). The Salinas Valley as a whole has low 

education and job training and is heavily based on an 

agricultural economy, although Salinas has significantly 

greater population and employment diversity than the 

other cities along Highway 101.

Figure 10. 

Housing costs 

as a percent of 

area median income in the Salinas Valley and 

coastal Monterey County. 

Housing costs 

more along the 

coast than in 

many locations 

farther east, 

leading many 

low- and moderate-income 

households to 

move to the 

Salinas Valley.

Image source: H+T 

Index, 2005-09
Creating Connected Communities 21

Chapter III. Housing and Transportation Case Studies

During housing booms in the late 1990s and the mid2000s, housing prices in coastal Monterey County rose 

rapidly. As a result, many middle-income residents 

moved from the coastal communities to the Salinas 

Valley, creating demand for housing that was more 

expensive than what typical Salinas Valley workers, 

many of whom were employed in agriculture, could 

afford. This new demand has created a two-tiered 

housing market, where lower income residents tend 

to live in older neighborhoods on the west side of 

the highway and middle-income or upper income 

residents live in newer subdivisions on the east side. 

Jobs have not moved inland as quickly as households, 

so employment opportunities in the smaller cities 

along Highway 101 are still largely agricultural. Many 

residents of Gonzales, Soledad, Greenfield, and King 

City who do not work on a farm commute to Salinas 

or work elsewhere on the coast.

Residents also need to travel long distances for basic 

services, which are generally lacking in the Salinas 

Valley. Salinas, as the region’s largest metropolitan area, 

is the closest destination for most retail, healthy food, 

medical services, and higher education, although some 

services are also located in King City. For example, 

Hartnell Community College, the Salinas Valley’s only 

post-secondary educational institution, is located in 

Salinas. The region’s only hospitals and major grocery 

chains are located in Salinas and King City.

Monterey County has relatively high average 

car ownership rates, at just fewer than 2 cars per 

household.Many residents—particularly many lowincome agricultural workers—do not own vehicles, 

however, and are highly dependent on transit and 

alternative modes of transportation. Just one bus 

line, which is operated by Monterey-Salinas Transit, 

connects all the cities between Salinas and King City. 

The line has very limited service with, at most, an 

hourly schedule during certain weekday daytime hours 

and often runs at standing room only. In the absence of 

public transportation, it is not uncommon for people 

without their own vehicles to hitchhike into Salinas. 

In the long term, the lack of access to basic services, 

including the lack of transit service, could undermine 

the competitiveness of the small cities along Highway 

101 and their ability to attract and retain residents.

For agricultural workers commuting to farms, informal 

vanpooling has also become a popular means of 

transportation. This mode has become widespread, but 

it is often unsafe, and accidents can result in multiple 

injuries or death.

Figure 11. Vanpooling in Monterey County

Image Source: California Vanpool Authority

In response, the Association of Monterey Bay Area 

Governments (AMBAG), the region’s metropolitan 

planning organization and council of governments, 

has established a formal vanpooling program that 

provides vans with seatbelts and regular maintenance 

to agricultural workers, with the aim of providing farm 

workers with better alternatives and getting unsafe 

vehicles off the road. AMBAG operates the program in 

partnership with the region’s air-quality control district 

and CalVans, a joint powers public transportation 

authority comprising local transportation planning 

agencies from agricultural regions across California.

Focus City: Gonzales

Gonzales is 15 miles to the southeast of Salinas along 

Highway 101. Gonzales has a primarily low-income 
22 Creating Connected Communities

Chapter III. Housing and Transportation Case Studies

Hispanic population, and its official population 

count was 8,187 in 2010. City and regional officials, 

however, believe that census data does not account for 

undocumented workers residing in the city. Gonzales 

Figure 12. 

City of 

Gonzales. 

Because 

Gonzales 

neighborhoods west 

of 101 were 

developed 

as a grid 

around the 

railroad, it 

is easier to 

walk from 

housing to 

retail and 

services on 

the west 

side. Residents east 

of 101 must 

take longer, 

more circuitous routes 

through culde-sacs to 

reach their 

destinations.

Image source: 

Esri, DigitalGlobe, 

GeoEye, 

i-cubed, USDA, 

USGS, AEX, 

Getmapping, 

Aerogrid, IGN, 

IGP, swisstopo, 

and the GIS User 

Community
Creating Connected Communities 23

Chapter III. Housing and Transportation Case Studies

consists mainly of tract housing and provides little in 

the way of services and amenities, aside from smaller 

grocery and drug stores and the Gonzales Unified 

School District. According to available data, 28 

percent of workers who live in the city are employed in 

agriculture.29

The city is small and can be easily traversed via foot or 

bicycle, although Highway 101, which slices through 

the city, poses some access issues within Gonzales for 

residents who are not traveling by car. The highway 

splits the city into two distinct halves, reflecting the 

two-tiered nature of the region’s housing market. An 

older, more compact neighborhood, centered around 

the historic downtown, sits to the west of Highway 

101. Many of the city’s lower income residents live 

on the west side of the highway, where the median 

income was $44,800 a year in 2009. The east side of 

the highway was developed more recently and more 

closely resembles suburban style subdivisions designed 

for automobile transportation. Households on the east 

of 101 earned a median income of $78,500 in 2009. In 

a similar pattern, on average, housing units on the east 

side cost $11,360 more per year than housing units on 

the west side.

As a small city with limited resources, Gonzales places 

a high priority on developing partnerships with local 

business associations and local, state, and regional 

agencies, and is constantly seeking and applying 

for state and federal grants to expand its capacity.30

For example, in 2011, the city worked with the 

local district office of the California Department of 

Transportation (Caltrans) to develop a work plan 

for completing a Community to School Pedestrian 

Plan to evaluate routes that children take to school, 

identify infrastructure improvements that would 

encourage walking and bicycling to school, and 

29 U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD 

Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (Beginning of 

Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2002–2011).

30 City of Gonzales, “Annual Report,” 2012. http://

www.ci.gonzales.ca.us/cms-assets/documents/106071-

886448.2012-annual-report-english-final.pdf.

improve the city’s competitiveness for grants to fund 

future infrastructure improvements. In addition to 

assisting with the development of the work plan, 

Caltrans provided a transportation planning grant 

to help fund the development of the Community 

to School Pedestrian Plan, which was completed in 

2012. Also in 2012, the city worked with Monterey 

County and the city of Del Ray Oaks (another small 

city in the county) to submit an application to HUD 

to become an entitlement community for the purposes 

of receiving Community Development Block Grant 

(CDBG) funds. The application was accepted, meaning 

that the county now receives an annual allocation of 

CDBG funds for use in the cities of Gonzales and Del 

Ray Oaks and in unincorporated areas of the county.31

Prior to their designation as an entitlement community, 

the cities and the county were required to apply to 

the state Department of Housing and Community 

Development for CDBG funding on a project-byproject basis.32

Key Challenges

• As a small city with a relatively lowincome population, Gonzales has limited 

staff capacity and financial resources. 

The city’s capacity constraints can make planning 

and implementing housing and transportation 

programs more challenging.

• Households that move farther out to find 

lower housing costs may also have reduced 

access to jobs and services. Residents who 

were pushed out of coastal Monterey County to 

the Salinas Valley due to rising housing prices now 

have to drive farther for employment and services, 

spending more time and money on transportation.

31 Monterey County Economic Development Department, 

“2013 Notice of Funding Availability: Community 

Development Block Grant Program, Application 

and Guidelines for Fiscal Year 2012–13,” http://www.

co.monterey.ca.us/EconomicDevelopment/pdf/planupdates/Monterey%20County%202013%20NOFA.pdf. 32 City of Gonzales, “Annual Report,” 2012.
24 Creating Connected Communities

Chapter III. Housing and Transportation Case Studies

• Residents of Gonzales and other Salinas 

Valley communities have difficulty 

accessing basic necessities and the tools for 

an improved future. As a result, the region is 

facing a future in which younger generations may 

leave for better opportunities elsewhere.

Keys to Success

• Providing access to basic services for 

residents in small communities is vital to a 

city’s success. Ensuring that low- and moderateincome residents can get to where they need to go 

will help local governments build a stronger, more 

resilient local economy and improve the efficiency 

of public spending.

• In the absence of adequate bus service or 

other transportation options, residents 

who do not or cannot drive have turned 

to informal means of transportation. In 

the Salinas Valley, agricultural workers and others 

who do not own a car have turned to hitchhiking 

and informal vanpooling to access jobs and services, 

creating public safety challenges. The establishment 

of subsidized and regulated vanpooling programs 

by the regional council of government will assist 

many of the small communities in the Salinas 

Valley to fill this transportation gap.

• Small cities should look to local, state, 

and federal partners to help fund and 

implement housing and transportation 

programs. Gonzales has successfully partnered 

with agencies such as the state department of 

transportation, Monterey County, and neighboring 

cities to access state and federal funding for 

transportation and housing programs.

Key Sources

• City of Gonzales, 2012. “Annual Report.” 

http://www.ci.gonzales.ca.us/cms-assets/

documents/106071-886448.2012-annual-reportenglish-final.pdf.

• Coastplans, Hamilton-Swift & Associates, Inc., 

and Eadie Consulting, Gonzales 2010 General Plan 

(City of Gonzales City Council, January 18, 2011), 

http://www.ci.gonzales.ca.us/Documents/Planning/

General%20Plan/Gonzales_2010_General_Plan_

Adopted_Version_Web.pdf.

• Monterey County Economic Development 

Department. 2013. “2013 Notice of Funding 

Availability: Community Development Block 

Grant Program, Application and Guidelines for 

Fiscal Year 2012–13.” Available at http://www.

co.monterey.ca.us/EconomicDevelopment/pdf/

plan-updates/Monterey%20County%202013%20

NOFA.pdf.

• Moore & Associates, Inc., Monterey-Salinas Transit 

District South County Area Service Analysis 

(Monterey-Salinas Transit District, December 14, 

2010), https://www.mst.org/wp-content/media/

MST-SoCASA_Final-Report-01.13.10.pdf.

• Anais Schenk. 2013 (June 17). Personal 

communication. Planner, Association of Monterey 

Bay Area Governments. 

• Thomas Truszkowski. 2013 (June 17). Personal 

communication. Community Development 

Director, City of Gonzales. 
Creating Connected Communities 25

Chapter III. Housing and Transportation Case Studies

Traverse City, Michigan

Traverse City demonstrates two key factors in linking affordable housing and 

transportation: (1) housing developers must consider location and accessibility in 

siting affordable housing due to the impact on future residents’ quality of life, and 

(2) housing and transit advocates must be at the table together to ensure that 

affordable housing is built in areas where reliable public transportation is provided.

Traverse City is a small city in the northern region of 

Michigan with a population of about 14,700. Although 

Traverse City is relatively small in population, it is the 

largest city in the northern 21 counties of Michigan 

and its urban area houses 143,400 people. The city’s 

economy is primarily based on the service industry 

due to the influx of tourists who flock to the lush hills, 

vineyards, parks, and beach on Grand Traverse Bay 

and to other sites that provide ample opportunities 

for outdoor and water-based activities. Through the 

work of a local nonprofit, the city provides more than 

15 miles of bike and pedestrian trails that enhance 

residents’ and visitors’ access to recreational and 

transportation opportunities. Small businesses and 

industrial parks, which have built up during the past 

few decades, also support the local economy.

Within Traverse City, most residents have fairly reliable 

and consistent access to public transit through the 

Bay Area Transportation Authority (BATA). Within 

the past few years, BATA has refocused the priorities 

for its transit service to focus on improving efficiency, 

expanding routes, and increasing frequency of service. 

Traverse City is compact, relatively walkable, and serves 

as an employment hub for many people outside the 

city. Housing costs tend to be higher in areas closest 

to the Lake Michigan shore, compelling many lower 

income households to seek housing farther afield or 

outside city boundaries altogether.

In the metropolitan area surrounding Traverse City, 

households trade less expensive housing for higher 

transportation costs. As with many small towns and 

rural areas, destinations are farther apart, jobs are 

farther away, and transit is less available. Fewer transit 

options and more subdivisions built for the car can 

Figure 13. Traverse City, MI

Image Source: Northwest Michigan Council of Governments

make it difficult and more expensive to travel to jobs 

and amenities. Residents who do not drive rely on 

services like dial-a-ride to access jobs clustered near 

the shore of Lake Michigan. It may also be harder 

to access other amenities without a car because of a 

lower population density to support shops, restaurants, 

and services. As a result, a typical household earning 

$48,900 in 2007 drove 4,900 additional vehicle miles 

and spent $2,300 a year more on transportation than 

one living within city boundaries.

Local and Regional Planning Efforts

Traverse City (along with six counties in the region—

Antrim, Benzie, Grand Traverse, Kalkaska, Leelanau, 

and Wexford) participated in a regional visioning 

process that culminated in 2009 with the release of 

“The Grand Vision,” linking land use, transportation, 

economic development, and sustainability.33 This vision 

helped pave the way for Grand Traverse County to 

receive a HUD Community Challenge Planning Grant 

through the Partnership for Sustainable Communities 

33 “The Grand Vision,” 2013, http://thegrandvision.org/.
26 Creating Connected Communities

Chapter III. Housing and Transportation Case Studies

in 2010. The communities used those grant funds to 

prepare the following studies and plans:

• A countywide housing inventory and strategy.

• A new master plan for Grand Traverse County 

that identifies community values and strategies to 

enhance those values.

• A new corridor plan for the city of Traverse City 

that identifies and makes recommendations for 

improvements for five major streets.34

In 2011, the Northwest Michigan Council of 

Governments, whose members include Traverse City, 

Grand Traverse County, and 10 other counties, was 

awarded a HUD Regional Planning Grant, in part to 

develop an implementation framework for the Grand 

Vision.

Focus Affordable Housing 

Developments: The Village at Grand 

Traverse Commons, the Depot 

Neighborhood, and Orchard View 

Terrace

The Village at Grand Traverse Commons in the Kids 

Creek neighborhood sits on the site of a beautifully 

constructed old state mental hospital. Through the use 

of Low-Income Housing Tax Credits and Michigan 

State Historic Tax Credits, a local developer reused the 

land and buildings, and created a mixed-use campus 

with retail, office, and approximately 130 residential 

units, 60 of which are affordable.

Although a large state highway disrupts pedestrian 

connectivity and creates safety challenges one-half mile 

from the property, residents of this area are still able to 

access jobs, healthy food, schools, and the downtown 

using public transportation and bike and pedestrian 

paths. The Village at Grand Traverse Commons benefits 

from a working relationship between BATA (the 

34 Grand Traverse County Planning & Development 

Department, “Grant Makes Plans Happen in Grand 

Traverse County,” June 27, 2013, http://www.co.grandtraverse.mi.us/Assets/Departments/Administration/

Press+Releases/2013/Grant.pdf.

transit agency) and the developer of the property. The 

developers approached BATA when they initiated the 

first phase of developing the retail shops to ensure that 

patrons of the development would have transit access. 

This initial conversation helped secure public transit 

access for the residents in the Village.

Not far from Kids Creek is the proposed Depot 

Neighborhood development. Habitat for Humanity 

and Homestretch, two nonprofit organizations, 

are developing a project in partnership with Grand 

Traverse County that is planned to include a total of 21 

homeownership opportunities for qualifying low- and 

moderate-income households. Depot Neighborhood 

is an infill project located near the edge of the Traverse 

Heights neighborhood on Eighth Street, one of the 

corridors identified in Traverse City’s corridor study. 

It is in a transit- and amenity-rich location, within 

walking distance of a library, a grocery store, and the 

downtown area. The neighborhood is served by fixedroute bus services with convenient connections to other 

BATA routes.

Grand Traverse County is contributing to the project 

by purchasing the property with $195,000 from the 

HUD Challenge Planning Grant received in 2010 and 

by providing an additional $100,000 for infrastructure 

improvements to the site. The county has stated 

that the strategies included in the housing inventory 

document (completed under the HUD Challenge 

Planning Grant) were “essential in providing direction 

for the county in its decision to support the Depot 

Neighborhood.”3535

At both the Village at Grand Traverse Commons and 

the Depot Neighborhood project, residents have access 

to jobs, adequate sidewalks for walking and biking, and 

safe access to transit. In contrast, the Orchard View 

Terrace public housing development is isolated and 

does not offer residents good access to basic

35 Ibid.
Creating Connected Communities 27

Chapter III. Housing and Transportation Case Studies

services and amenities. The Orchard View Terrace 

public housing development is located on a two-lane 

country road at the northern edge of Traverse City—a 

predominantly car oriented part of town.

Orchard View Terrace houses 65 families, many of 

whom experience transportation challenges. The 

Housing Commission came face to face with the 

challenging location of the complex when it moved 

its offices to Orchard View Terrace a few years ago. 

Residents from other parts of the city were unable 

to get to the Housing Commission office because 

of lack of transportation to Orchard View Terrace, 

so the Housing Commission moved its offices back 

downtown. This solution worked for the Housing 

Commission, but for residents still living in Orchard 

View Terrace, accessing jobs, basic services, and 

amenities continues to be a challenge.

Traverse City Housing Commission Director Ilah 

Honson put an even finer point on the issue: “...more 

of my residents would have the ability to get to a job if 

they had reliable transportation.”

Figure 14. The Kids Creek and Traverse Heights neighborhoods in Traverse City. The urban 

environment of Traverse City shifts from a grid surrounding downtown to automobile oriented 

neighborhoods. Low Income Housing Tax Credits have not always been invested in projects in 

these more compact and walkable neighborhoods.

Image source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User 

Community
28 Creating Connected Communities

Chapter III. Housing and Transportation Case Studies

Key Challenges

• Traverse City is a small city with limited 

staff capacity and financial resources. 

Such a small city’s capacity constraints can 

make planning and implementing housing and 

transportation programs more challenging.

• Accessibility to destinations matters.

In Orchard View Terrace, some residents face 

difficulties accessing jobs and other daily amenities 

because of the isolated location of the housing 

development. In the future, should Orchard View 

Terrace choose to expand housing on the site, 

the transportation challenges (as identified by the 

Director of the Housing Commission) will need to 

be addressed.

• There is a tradeoff between housing and 

transportation costs. Traverse City is a tourist 

town, so many jobs and amenities cluster near the 

Lake Michigan shore where housing costs may be 

the highest.

Figure 15. Jobs per square mile in Traverse City. Easy access to jobs can lower the cost of trans- portation in a community. For example, residents of the Village can get to more jobs than at 

other LIHTC properties throughout the city.

Image source: H+T Index, 2005-09
Creating Connected Communities 29

Chapter III. Housing and Transportation Case Studies

Keys to Success

• Centrally located, infill locations for 

affordable housing more efficiently use 

existing programs and infrastructure. 

Locating new affordable housing in Village 

at Grand Traverse Commons and the Depot 

Neighborhood project allows residents to take 

advantage of the Traverse City’s 15 miles of bike 

and pedestrian trails and access transit service 

provided by BATA.

• Housing developers must consider location 

and accessibility in siting affordable 

housing due to the impact on residents’ 

quality of life. The Village at Grand Traverse 

Commons is an example of a mixed-income 

housing project where the developer recognized 

the value of locating housing in connected 

communities.

• Affordable housing developers must play 

a greater role in the discussion about 

the importance of linking residents to 

public transit. As evidenced in the Kids Creek 

example, the housing developer approached the 

transit officials about locating a bus stop on the 

development site. Through this initial discussion, 

existing residents now have better access to public 

transit because of the relationship between the two 

entities.

• By participating in multijurisdictional 

and regional planning processes, small 

cities can expand their capacity to plan 

for, fund, and implement housing and 

transportation programs. Although Traverse 

City itself does not have a great number of 

planning staff or resources, it gained resources by 

participating in the regional visioning process. As 

a result of the multijurisdictional HUD Challenge 

Planning Grant process, Grand Traverse County 

is contributing to the Depot Neighborhood by 

purchasing the property for the project.

• Coordination and collaboration can 

be critical to success. Coordinated local 

and regional planning efforts involving HUD, 

Northwest Michigan Council of Governments, 

Grand Traverse County, and Traverse City resulted 

in the county’s decision to invest in the Depot 

Neighborhood project in Traverse City.

Key Sources

• Carrie Thompson. 2013 (June 5). Personal 

communication. Business Development Director, 

Bay Area Transportation Authority. 

• Ilah Honson. 2013 (June 4). Personal 

communication. Director, Traverse City Housing 

Commission.

• Matt Skeels. 2013 (June 4). Personal 

communication. Grand Vision Transportation 

Network Coordinator, Northwest Michigan 

Council of Governments.

• Sarah Lucas 2013 (May 21). Personal 

communication. Regional Planner, Northwest 

Michigan Council of Governments.

• Grand Traverse County Planning & Development 

Department, “Grant Makes Plans Happen in 

Grand Traverse County,” June 27, 2013, http://

www.co.grand-traverse.mi.us/Assets/Departments/

Administration/Press+Releases/2013/Grant.pdf.

• The Grand Vision. http://www.thegrandvision.org/ 

(accessed June 2013).

• TART Trails Inc. http://traversetrails.org/ (accessed 

June 2013).
30 Creating Connected Communities

Chapter III. Housing and Transportation Case Studies

Lake Worth, Florida

Lake Worth is a small city in Palm Beach County that has implemented a variety of 

bicycle and pedestrian projects to better serve the residents of some of its poorest 

neighborhoods and support the local tax base, while also focusing on improving the 

quality of its affordable housing stock.

Lake Worth is a city of about 35,000 people and 7 

square miles, located on the Atlantic coast in Palm 

Beach County. Surrounded by some of the wealthiest 

communities in the state of Florida, Lake Worth’s 

affordable housing stock has attracted a diverse 

population, including many artists and musicians, 

immigrants, and low-income households. The 

city’s historic downtown and bungalows, walkable 

neighborhoods, beachfront, and 16 neighborhood 

associations contribute to an amenity- and communityFigure 16. 

Combined 

housing and 

transportation costs as 

a percent of 

area median 

income in 

Lake Worth. 

Average 

housing and 

transportation costs 

amount to 

between 

50 and 60 

percent of 

area median 

income in 

most neighborhoods.

Image source: 

H+T Index, 2005-

09
Creating Connected Communities 31

Chapter III. Housing and Transportation Case Studies

rich lifestyle for residents. Lake Worth has 

one train station that is part of the regional 

commuter rail system, Tri-Rail, which 

provides service to Ft. Lauderdale and the 

Miami Airport, among other destinations.

During the last decade, Lake Worth’s 

population has stagnated, remaining flat 

while the metropolitan region’s population 

grew by 11 percent between 2000 and 2010. 

The city also has a low median income 

($37,288 compared with the regional median 

of $55,988) and a high poverty rate (29 

percent compared with less than 9 percent 

for the county as a whole). Nearly one-half 

of all households in Lake Worth rent rather 

than own their housing unit (compared 

with 35 percent in the region as a whole), 

and the city has experienced high rates of 

home foreclosure, vacant housing units, and 

building code violations. At the same time, 

municipal revenues declined significantly 

during the recession, resulting in a reduced 

staff size and decreased funding for capital 

improvements.

Focus Neighborhoods: Tropical 

Ridge and Royal Poinciana

The Tropical Ridge and Royal Poinciana 

neighborhoods are among the lowest income 

residential neighborhoods in Lake Worth, 

and are included in the city’s Community 

Redevelopment Area.36 The neighborhoods 

provide many residents with affordable, 

market-rate housing and with many 

36 Under Florida state law, communities can establish 

Community Redevelopment Agencies (CRAs) to 

address conditions such as substandard or inadequate 

structures, a shortage of affordable housing, inadequate 

infrastructure, insufficient roadways, and inadequate 

parking within designated Community Redevelopment 

Areas. CRAs have the power to collect tax increment 

financing. or TIF, dollars (that is, increases in property 

tax revenues over a frozen base year amount) and use 

those funds to make improvements within Community 

Redevelopment Areas.

Figure 17. The Tropical Ridge and Royal Poinciana 

neighborhoods in Lake Worth. Improved sidewalks 

and bicycle lanes will help residents in Royal Poinciana 

and Tropical Ridge take advantage of the street grid 

to walk to destinations like Lake Worth High School, 

businesses along Lake and Lucerne Avenues, and the 

Tri-Rail station.

Image source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, 

Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

transportation options, including access to the city’s 

Tri-Rail station and several local and regional bus 

lines. The average household exceeds three members in 

Tropical Ridge and four members in Royal Poinciana. 

Nearly 25 percent of Tropical Ridge residents and 19 

percent of Royal Poinciana residents are less than the 

age of 18. The prevalence of large households with 

children makes local destinations such as schools 
32 Creating Connected Communities

Chapter III. Housing and Transportation Case Studies

Figure 18. Plans conducted in 2001 and 2005 

found that broken, impassable, and missing 

sidewalks in the Tropical Ridge and Royal 

Poinciana neighborhoods were contributing 

to declining property values and eroding 

Lake Worth’s tax base.

Image source: Lake Worth Community Redevelopment Agency, 

2007

and parks a particularly important consideration 

in neighborhood transportation planning. Tropical 

Ridge is also home to at least one independent living 

community for seniors, Lake Worth Towers. Many 

of the senior residents do not drive, and are highly 

dependent on the local bus system and county 

paratransit service, which provides door-to-door service 

for disabled residents, seniors, and visitors.

In plans conducted in 2001 and 2005,37 the Lake 

Worth Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) 

identified severe infrastructure deficiencies, including 

deteriorating sidewalks, lack of street lighting, and 

an incomplete roadway network, as among the 

neighborhood’s major challenges. Throughout the 

neighborhoods were numerous impassable and missing 

sidewalks, and a number of the east-west rights-of-way 

37 Lake Worth Community Redevelopment Agency, 

Neighborhood Enhancement Program, March 

2005, http://www.lakeworthcra.org/downloads/

neighborhood_enhancement_report.pdf; Lake Worth 

Community Redevelopment Agency, City of Lake 

Worth Redevelopment Plan, February 2001, http://

www.lakeworthcra.org/downloads/pdfs/plans docs/

REDEVELOPMENTPLAN.pdf.

were unpaved, overgrown, and littered with trash. The 

lack of sidewalk connectivity and many unimproved 

rights-of-way hampered residents’ ability to safely walk 

and bicycle, and presented a particular challenge for 

students trying to access Lake Worth High School. In 

addition, these infrastructure deficiencies—along with 

a disinvested housing stock, vacant housing units, and 

high rate of absentee ownership—were contributing 

to declining property values and eroding the city’s 

tax base. To improve conditions for residents, attract 

new private investment, and the property tax base, 

the CRA and city of Lake Worth have focused on 

improving pedestrian and bicycling connectivity, and 

on upgrading the quality of the local housing stock.

Improving Pedestrian and Bicycle 

Connectivity

Most of the city and CRA’s efforts to improve 

walking conditions have been focused on the Tropical 

Ridge neighborhood, which has one of the most 

active neighborhood associations in Lake Worth. 

For example, between 2006 and 2009, the CRA 

conducted two sidewalk demonstration programs in 

Tropical Ridge to add sidewalks where none existed, 

Figure 19. The city of Lake Worth and the 

Community Redevelopment Agency recently 

completed 8 miles of new or restriped bicycle 

lanes, and adopted a policy to include bicycle 

infrastructure, whenever a street is repaved.

Image source: Lake Worth Community Redevelopment Agency, 

2013
Creating Connected Communities 33

Chapter III. Housing and Transportation Case Studies

and replaced those that were impassable. The program 

was paid for with CRA tax-increment financing, and 

addressed most of the broken and missing sidewalks 

in Tropical Ridge. The sidewalk challenges in Royal 

Poinciana—where residents historically have been 

less well organized and only recently established a 

neighborhood association—remain, however.

The city and CRA have worked to improve the bicycle 

network throughout Lake Worth, beginning with a 

Bicycle Master Plan created in 2009. Conducted with 

significant public involvement, the plan identified 

where bicycle lanes needed to be added or improved 

throughout Lake Worth. The city and CRA recently 

completed the first phase of improvements, consisting 

of 8 miles of new or restriped lanes, costing slightly less 

than $100,000. Several lanes run through the Tropical 

Ridge and Royal Poinciana neighborhoods, providing 

improved connections to downtown, and are proving 

to be popular with the community. The city has also 

adopted a policy to include bicycle infrastructure 

whenever a street is repaved.

Lake Worth most recently turned its attention to 

addressing the unimproved rights-of-way. The city and 

CRA were recently awarded a $750,000 grant from the 

Palm Beach Metropolitan Planning Organization to 

create a greenway for pedestrians and bicyclists on one 

of the unimproved rights-of-way in Royal Poinciana. 

Palm Beach County School District partnered in the 

grant proposal. The greenway will provide a safer route 

to Lake Worth High School; many students currently 

walk along 6th Avenue South, one of the city’s busiest 

arterials, to get to school. The city is also working on 

a citywide master plan to identify all the unimproved 

rights-of-way in Lake Worth.

Upgrading the Local Housing Stock

In addition to infrastructure deficiencies, the CRA’s 

2001 and 2005 plans identified a disinvested and 

deteriorating housing stock as a major challenge facing 

the Tropical Ridge and Royal Poinciana neighborhoods. 

Figure 20. Before (top) and after (bottom) 

photos of one of the Lake Worth CRA’s Neighborhood Stabilization Program projects.

Image source: Lake Worth Community Redevelopment Agency, 

2011 and 2012

The CRA’s plans found that while housing in these 

neighborhoods was affordable, many units were poorly 

maintained or vacant, negatively affecting the quality 

of the neighborhood overall. These problems only 

intensified during the national housing crisis that 
34 Creating Connected Communities

Chapter III. Housing and Transportation Case Studies

began in 2008. Tropical Ridge and Royal Poinciana 

experienced some of the highest foreclosure rates in the 

city and also had high rates of building code violations.

In response to these challenges, the Lake Worth CRA 

worked with 20 community-based organizations 

and local businesses to obtain a $23 million federal 

Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) grant in 

2010 to purchase, rehabilitate, and demolish foreclosed 

homes. The target area for the NSP grant included 

most of the Tropical Ridge and Royal Poinciana 

neighborhoods and parts of downtown Lake Worth. 

Over the course of 3 years, the CRA invested the grant 

funding in more than 100 foreclosed and abandoned 

properties, providing homeownership opportunities for 

families and injecting new life into the neighborhoods. 

Two local housing providers, Habitat for Humanity 

and Adopt-a-Family of the Palm Beaches, completed 

many of the renovations. The CRA and its partners 

have received awards for their successful deployment 

of the funds, including a first place City Cultural 

Diversity award from the National League of Cities 

for programs that encourage citizen involvement and 

promote diversity. At the same time, the city of Lake 

Worth has focused on improving code compliance, 

including adopting a new code-compliance process 

and adding four new code-compliance staff members 

since 2010. In addition to contributing to an improved 

housing stock and quality of life, these efforts are 

demonstrating to residents and potential funding 

partners that the city has the capacity to tackle major 

challenges and use grant funding efficiently and 

effectively.

Key Challenges

• Lake Worth has limited staff capacity 

and financial resources. The city’s capacity 

constraints can make planning and implementing 

housing and transportation programs more 

challenging.

• Bicycle and pedestrian access to schools, 

parks, and amenities affects quality of life 

and transportation costs. There are many 

large households with children in Royal Poinciana 

and Tropical Ridge. The ability to walk or bike to 

a local school or park can significantly impact the 

cost of transportation for these households.

• Poor-quality sidewalks and other 

transportation infrastructure, as well as 

disinvested housing, can contribute to 

falling property values and a declining tax 

base. Lake Worth decided to focus on improving 

pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and upgrading 

its housing stock after the CRA concluded that 

infrastructure deficiencies and a dilapidated 

housing stock were negatively affecting the quality 

of life and the tax base in the Tropical Ridge and 

Royal Poinciana neighborhoods.

Keys to Success

• Citizen engagement can help focus 

attention on local needs. Although both 

Tropical Ridge and Royal Poinciana both have 

significant infrastructure needs, Tropical Ridge has 

received more attention from the city and public 

investments, including the sidewalk demonstration 

programs and fitness park. This attention is in part 

due to Tropical Ridge’s active residents, who have 

formed one of the city’s most active neighborhood 

associations and lobbied the city for improvements. 

Royal Poinciana has only recently formed a 

neighborhood association.

• Small and mid-sized cities can expand 

their capacity by building partnerships to 

help fund and implement improvements. 

Partnerships—between the city and CRA and 

with the MPO, school district, and community 

organizations—have been critical to Lake 

Worth’s success, both in raising funding and in 

implementing housing and transportation projects. 

These partnerships, however, have been formed 
Creating Connected Communities 35

Chapter III. Housing and Transportation Case Studies

largely on an ad hoc basis in Lake Worth, with 

partners coming together around specific projects. 

The city and CRA are working to meet more 

regularly with the school district, county, MPO, 

and other organizations in an attempt to establish 

ongoing relationships and expand Lake Worth’s 

access to the region’s resources.

• Relatively low-cost investments can make 

a significant difference in improving 

community connectivity and health. Lake 

Worth’s new bicycle lanes, for example, cost slightly 

less than $100,000 and are heavily used by the 

community.

Key Sources

• Dabros, Chris. 2013 (May 31). Personal 

communication. Project Manager, Lake Worth 

Community Redevelopment Agency.

• Lake Worth Community Redevelopment Agency. 

[2001]. City of Lake Worth Redevelopment 

Plan, February 2001. http://www.lakeworthcra.

org/downloads/pdfs/plans%20docs/

REDEVELOPMENTPLAN.pdf.

• Lake Worth Community Redevelopment Agency. 

[2005]. Neighborhood Enhancement Program, 

http://www.lakeworthcra.org/downloads/

neighborhood_enhancement_report.pdf.

• Oliva, Joan. 2013 (May 17). Personal 

communication. Executive Director, Lake Worth 

Community Redevelopment Agency.
36 Creating Connected Communities

Chapter III. Housing and Transportation Case Studies

Portland, Maine

The Bayside neighborhood in Portland, Maine, is a former industrial area that is 

undergoing a transformation into an urban gateway with significant mixed-income 

residential and office development. The neighborhood provides excellent pedestrian 

access to employment and services, but institutional and financial barriers pose a 

barrier to coordination between new housing development and transit.

Portland is the largest city in Maine and, with roughly 

66,200 people, accounts for approximately one-third 

of the state’s population. Transportation options 

and the urban environment vary significantly across 

different parts of the city. These differences have led 

to wide variation in the combined cost of housing 

and transportation in different neighborhoods (Figure 

21). The peninsula section of the city—located on the 

east side of I-295—is the historic core of Portland, 

and remains a compact, walkable place that includes 

the downtown employment center and many other 

destinations that can be reached by foot. The peninsula 

is also served by two local bus providers, a commuter 

bus service, a regional Amtrak line that provides service 

to Boston, a ferry service, and a paratransit provider. 

Several private shuttles also operate in the district. As 

a result of these land use patterns and transportation 

options, most of the peninsula has relatively low 

housing and transportation costs (Figure 21).

West of I-295, Portland’s neighborhoods tend to 

be more auto-oriented, with fewer transit options. 

Figure 21. 

Combined 

housing and 

transportation costs as 

a percent of 

area median income 

in Portland. 

Differences 

in the built 

environment, from 

the config- uration of 

streets to 

the compactness of 

development, have 

led to wide 

variation in 

the combined cost 

of housing 

and transportation 

across the 

city.

Image source: 

H+T Index, 2005-

09
Creating Connected Communities 37

Chapter III. Housing and Transportation Case Studies

Household densities are lower, 

and jobs are spread farther 

apart. Portland’s bus system is 

designed in a “hub-and-spoke” 

configuration, with most lines 

running into the peninsula. 

As a result, residents may face 

challenges trying to access jobs 

located outside the peninsula. 

Moreover, the multiple transit 

agencies that operate within 

Portland each set their own 

schedules and fares, so making 

connections between services for 

cross-town trips can be difficult.

In addition to creating challenges 

for riders, the lack of a single, 

unified transit authority often 

makes it difficult to coordinate 

new housing development with 

public transportation service. 

Furthermore, a constitutional 

barrier in Maine prevents state transportation funds 

from being used for anything other than highways, 

so the burden of paying for transit service falls to the 

municipalities. These challenges are discussed in greater 

detail below.

Focus Neighborhood: Bayside

The Bayside neighborhood is located on Portland’s 

peninsula, immediately adjacent to downtown. Bayside 

is a historically industrial district that had experienced 

significant disinvestment by the late 1990s. The average 

median household income in 2011 was $21,500, 

considerably lower than that of the citywide median 

of $45,150. Prompted by the large number of vacant, 

underused, and contaminated properties, the city of 

Portland began an extensive planning process that 

resulted in a plan adopted in 2000, known as A New 

Vision for Bayside. The plan envisioned the district 

as a walkable, “attractive urban gateway featuring a 

mix of uses, compact and intensive development as 

an extension of the downtown.” A New Vision also 

planned for the area to become a transit-oriented 

district, with new development focused around 

shuttle and local bus service, which would connect the 

neighborhood to Amtrak and regional bus stops located 

across I-295 at the Portland Transportation Center. 

Since adoption of the plan, the city has spent nearly $8 

million and leveraged another $14.5 in federal grants 

to acquire land, build streets and trails, and clean up 

contaminated sites.38 Bayside has also experienced 

tremendous office and residential development, 

including the upcoming midtown development project, 

a large mixed-use project with 14-story towers that will 

be among the tallest in Portland.

38 Seth Koenig, “Portland’s Bayside Renaissance: 

$8 Million in City Investments Triggers Nearly $140 

Million in Private Development,” The Bangor Daily 

News, February 17, 2013, http://bangordailynews.com/

slideshow/portlands-bayside-renaissance-8-million-incity-investments-triggers-nearly-140-million-in-privatedevelopment/.

Figure 22. Portland’s peninsula is served by two local bus provid- ers, a commuter bus service, a regional Amtrak line that provides 

service to Boston, a ferry service, a paratransit provider, and sev- eral private shuttles.

Image source: Alta Planning + Design, 2013
38 Creating Connected Communities

Chapter III. Housing and Transportation Case Studies

The new market-rate development that has occurred 

in Bayside has also been accompanied by affordable 

housing development. In A New Vision for Bayside, 

the city of Portland called for a “diversity of dwelling 

types [to] enable citizens from a wide range of 

economic levels, age groups, and life circumstances to 

live in Bayside.” Out of the 24 Low-Income Housing 

Tax Credit properties in Portland, 20 are located in 

neighborhoods to the west and south of I-295 (Figure 

21). Affordable housing developers have focused 

development in and around Bayside to take advantage 

of proximity and access to downtown. For example, 

Avesta Housing’s Pearl Place affordable housing 

development boasts that 43 percent of its residents can 

walk to work.39

Indeed, Bayside is highly walkable, with relatively high 

densities (an average of 15 households per acre in 

Bayside, compared with 4.5 in Portland as a whole) and 

small block sizes (the average block size is 3 acres in 

Bayside, compared with 12.6 to the citywide average). 

One-third of Bayside residents walk to work, compared 

with 11 percent of all workers who live in the city of 

Portland.

39 Avesta Housing, “Pearl Place,” 2010, http://www.

avestahousing.org/property-development/landmarkprojects/pearl-place.

Figure 23. The Bayside neighborhood in Portland. From West Bayside, residents can walk to 

jobs in downtown Portland or to amenities in surrounding neighborhoods.

Image source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User 

Community
Creating Connected Communities 39

Chapter III. Housing and Transportation Case Studies

In addition to its proximity 

to downtown, Bayside itself 

has significant employment 

and community services and 

amenities that are easily accessible 

to residents. Recognizing 

the importance of pedestrian 

and bicycle access, the city is 

focused on balancing motorized 

vehicle and nonmotorized 

transportation. The Bayside 

trail, for example, is a 1-mile, 

flat, paved urban trail that 

connects downtown to the 

Bayside community for easy 

walking and biking. While the 

neighborhood’s bicycle lanes are 

still underdeveloped, bicycling 

is reportedly on the rise in Bayside, with residents of 

all demographics starting to embrace this mode of 

transportation. In addition, Portland recently received a 

Building Blocks for Sustainable Communities technical 

assistance award from the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, focused on planning bike-share 

programs, an indication that bicycling remains a 

potential growth area.

Although the city has made significant progress in 

providing good pedestrian and bicycling connections 

for Bayside residents, the vision of Bayside as a 

transit-oriented district has been more challenging 

to implement. Without a regional or citywide transit 

authority or other coordinating body, housing in 

Bayside is being developed without much consideration 

for bus routes or other transit service. In the future, 

bus service may need to be expanded or adjusted to 

meet the transportation needs of new development. 

Expanding bus service to serve a new development 

may be difficult, however, because transit funding in 

Portland depends highly on the ups and downs of the 

annual municipal budget.

Key Challenges

• Institutional barriers, such as operational 

and financing structures, can be a major 

challenge for integrating affordable 

housing and transportation. The lack of 

a unified transit authority in the Portland area 

limits the opportunity for coordination between 

new housing development and transit service, so 

little attention is being paid to the transit options 

that might serve new development. In addition, 

the lack of a state funding source for transit has 

shifted the burden of expanding bus service to the 

municipality, so any plans to increase transit service 

will depend on fluctuations in the local annual 

budget.

Keys to Success

• By targeting new development to 

established neighborhoods with 

strong pedestrian, bicycle, and transit 

connections, cities can build on their 

existing assets. By targeting the Bayside 

neighborhood for new, higher intensity, marketrate and affordable development in its land use 

Figure 24. Portland’s Bayside Trail

Image source: Alta Planning + Design, 2013
40 Creating Connected Communities

Chapter III. Housing and Transportation Case Studies

plans, the city of Portland is taking advantage of 

the neighborhood’s proximity to downtown and 

the existing concentration of community services 

and amenities. In addition, by bringing new 

residents to the neighborhood, the new higher 

intensity development will help support additional 

retail and services over time, further enhancing the 

neighborhood’s walkability.

• Providing housing for a mix of income 

groups can contribute to the vitality and 

success of a neighborhood. Affordable housing 

is a critical component of Bayside’s transformation 

from a disinvested industrial neighborhood into a 

vibrant, mixed-use district.

• Market-rate and affordable housing 

developers increasingly are seeing the 

value of locating housing in connected 

communities. Developers in Portland have 

responded to the opportunity to construct 

affordable housing developments in walkable areas 

with easy access to the city’s downtown area.

Key Sources

• AnnArbor.com. [2013]. “Summary of State 

Funding For Transit,” http://www.annarbor.com/

Transit_Funding_Summary_WATS.pdf (accessed 

July 10, 2013).

• Avesta Housing, “Pearl Place,” 2010, http://

www.avestahousing.org/property-development/

landmark-projects/pearl-place.

• Billings, Randy. 2013 (July 10). “Better Portland 

Bus Services? An Effort Is Under Way,” Portland 

Press Herald. Also available at http://www.

pressherald.com/news/better-bus-services_-aneffort-is-underway_2012-10-08.html.

• City of Portland, Maine. 2000 (April). A New 

Vision for Bayside. Available at http://www.

portlandmaine.gov/planning/bayside.asp (accessed 

July 10, 2013).

• Eppich, Carl. 2013 (June 5). Personal 

communication. Senior Transportation Planner, 

Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation 

System.

• Koenig, Seth. 2013 (February 17). “Portland’s 

Bayside Renaissance: $8 Million in City 

Investments Triggers Nearly $140 Million in 

Private Development,” The Bangor Daily News. 

Also available at http://www.bangordailynews.com/

slideshow/portlands-bayside-renaissance-8-millionin-city-investments-triggers-nearly-140-million-inprivate-development/.

• Levine, Jeff. 2013 (June 7). Personal 

communication. Director, Planning & Urban 

Development, City of Portland.

• Maine Trail Finder. [2013]. “Bayside Trail on 

Maine Trail Finder.” http://www.mainetrailfinder.

com/trail/bayside-trail/ (accessed July 10, 2013).
Creating Connected Communities 41

Chapter III. Housing and Transportation Case Studies

Lakewood, Colorado

Lakewood, a Denver suburb, is being transformed by the recently opened West Rail 

Line that runs through a number of the city’s neighborhoods. The introduction of 

light rail has led to housing development in the community, but further investments 

in mobility and other improvements are needed.

Lakewood is a suburban community located 

immediately west of Denver, with a population of 

about 143,000. The city sits along the West Rail 

Line, which was the first phase of the Regional 

Figure 25. Median household income in Lakewood. Median income in Lakewood lags that of the 

Denver region, with incomes lowest in neighborhoods near its border with the city of Denver.

Image source: H+T Index, 2005-09
42 Creating Connected Communities

Chapter III. Housing and Transportation Case Studies

Transportation District of Denver’s (RTD) FasTracks 

Program to be completed. The RTD FasTracks program 

is a comprehensive transit expansion plan to build 

122 miles of new commuter rail and light rail and 

other transit services throughout RTD’s eight-county 

district.40

The West Rail Line, a light-rail transit corridor, opened 

in 2013. The light-rail line runs from downtown 

40 FasTracks Regional Transportation District of Denver 

(RTD), Denver, Colorado, http://www.rtd-fastracks.com.

Denver, through Lakewood, and terminates at the 

Jefferson County Government Center in the city of 

Golden, linking a number of residential neighborhoods 

and employment centers along the way. The new West 

Rail Line has presented an opportunity for investment 

in housing and transportation connections along the 

corridor.

In an effort to ensure that the investments along 

the corridor resulted in equitable transit-oriented 

development (TOD), the cities of Denver and 

Figure 26. The Lamar Street Station Area in Lakewood. The environment around Lamar Station is suburban/semirural in character. Sidewalks, a greater number of intersections, and more 

compact, mixed-use development will all make it easier for residents to take transit to work and 

walk around the neighborhood to meet daily needs.

Image source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User 

Community
Creating Connected Communities 43

Chapter III. Housing and Transportation Case Studies

Lakewood and their respective housing authorities—

the Denver Housing Authority and Metro West 

Housing Solutions (MWHS)—formed the West 

Corridor Working Group. The West Corridor 

Working Group was a multijurisdictional partnership 

of public and private agencies, tasked with creating 

a TOD implementation strategy for the corridor 

to better leverage resources and achieve mutually 

supportive objectives for TOD in the West Corridor. 

The collaboration is now being formalized into 

the West Line Corridor Collaborative, a nonprofit 

organization that seeks to improve the neighborhoods 

along the West Rail Line by attracting investment and 

supporting livable communities through advocacy and 

collaboration.41

Focus Neighborhood: Lamar Street 

Station Area

The Lamar Street Station Area is located in the Two 

Creeks area of Lakewood and lies directly along the 

West Rail Line. It is a largely residential area populated 

by mostly low-income renters and stands to benefit 

greatly from the incoming investment being spurred 

by the light rail. The Lamar light-rail station is a 

walkup station with no parking facilities, intended to 

encourage different modes of transit other than driving. 

Approximately 3,400 people live and 2,500 people 

work within one-half mile of the station.42 The city 

of Lakewood prepared a Lamar Street Station Area 

Plan in 2010. The Station Area Plan’s goals include 

creating strong connections by bike, rail, foot, and bus 

and encouraging a diversity of housing options for all 

income levels.

MWHS, the nonprofit housing authority in Lakewood, 

is currently building Lamar Station Crossing 

Apartments, a multifamily, mixed-income housing 

property located only 400 feet from the Lamar Street 

station of the West Line light-rail corridor. The location 

for the housing project was selected because of its 

41 http://www.westlinecorridor.org/ 42 City of Lakewood, Lamar Street Station Area Plan, 

March 2010.

Figure 27. Lamar Station Crossing Apartments are located across the street from 

where the light-rail stops (top), but there are 

no sidewalks in front of the apartments (middle), and reaching the station requires walking along a narrow street with no sidewalks 

on either side (bottom).

Image sources: Metro West Housing Solutions, Reconnecting 

America and Strategic Economics, 2012 and 2013
44 Creating Connected Communities

Chapter III. Housing and Transportation Case Studies

proximity to the light rail, and the project received 

Low-Income Housing Tax Credits in part because it 

is located within one-fourth of a mile of the station. 

With its proximity to the light rail, Lamar Station 

Crossing Apartments should be only 15 minutes from 

downtown Denver and from other employment centers 

and education campuses to the east and west.

Poor pedestrian connectivity to the light-rail station, 

however, is a significant challenge. From a historical 

perspective, Lakewood considers itself a rural 

community. Sidewalks have only recently become a 

priority, and their installation still requires permission 

from the neighborhood property owners where the 

sidewalks are needed. Although the Lamar Station 

Crossing Apartments project is within walking distance 

of the station, it is currently without any existing 

sidewalks, and access to the station is difficult. The 

area has bus service, which could serve as another 

alternative, but in light of the station’s location of 

only 400 feet away, access to the light rail would be 

preferable. The housing developer is working to get a 

sidewalk built on the property between the apartments 

and the station, but it may take up to 4 years. It 

is expected that the light rail itself will spur more 

development in the area, so other development projects 

may contribute to the costs for the sidewalk.

Key Challenges

• Light rail alone is not sufficient to make a 

location accessible to households without 

cars. Even after rail arrives in a community, 

sidewalks and other mobility improvements may 

still be required to make a location accessible 

without cars.

Keys to Success

• Coordinating land use and transportation 

planning is key to improving accessibility.

Suburban neighborhoods that once completely 

relied on the automobile are rethinking the 

importance of transit, sidewalks, and other mobility 

improvements. The built environment, however, 

is just as important as mobility improvements. 

New, more compact development can increase 

the services and stores within walking distance of 

a neighborhood. Sidewalks and other pedestrian 

improvements make it easier to walk to those 

destinations and to other transit options.

• Targeting existing resources, such as 

Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, to 

transit-served places can be an effective 

way of promoting affordable housing 

development in those locations. MWHS’s 

affordable housing development in Lamar is a 

direct result of tax credits aimed at promoting 

development in locations where residents can easily 

take advantage of public transportation.

Key Sources

• Connors, Brendalee. 2013 (June 5). Personal 

communication. Chief Asset Management Officer, 

MetroWest Housing Solutions.

• Fischer, Tami. 2013 (June 5). Personal 

communication. Executive Director/CEO, 

MetroWest Housing Solutions.

• Center for Transit-Oriented Development. 

2011 (July 21). Connecting the West Corridor 

Communities: An Implementation Strategy for 

TOD Along the Denver Region’s West Corridor. 

http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/resourcecenter/browse-research/2011/connecting-the-westcorridor-communities-an-implementation-strategyfor-tod-along-the-denver-region-s-west-corridor/ 

(accessed June 5, 2013).

• City of Lakewood. 2010 (March). Lamar Street 

Station Area Plan. http://www.lakewood.org/

Planning/Lakewood_West_Rail_Line/Station_

Area_Plans/Station_Area_Plans.aspx (accessed June 

5, 2013).

• Regional Transportation District of Denver (RTD). 

2013. “FasTracks Home.” http://www.rtd-fastracks.

com (accessed June 5, 2013).
Chapter IV. Implementation: What is Next?

Creating Connected Communities 45

Chapter IV. Implementation: What is Next?

This chapter presents a series of strategies that cities 

or other local governments (for example, towns, 

villages, unincorporated areas, counties) can use to 

improve the connections between affordable housing 

and jobs, schools, shopping, services, and other 

essential destinations in their communities. The 

strategies provide clear, actionable steps that small and 

mid-sized cities can take to create more connected 

communities. Given the limited staff capacity and 

financial resources of many small and mid-sized cities, 

the strategies emphasize looking for regional, state, 

and federal partnerships that can help expand local 

capacity, and making incremental changes that can 

add up to significant improvements in the mobility of 

low- and moderate-income residents. The strategies 

also encourage cities to consider the needs of residents 

of both market-rate and subsidized affordable housing, 

and to include providers of all types of transit—

including paratransit, shuttles, local bus, regional bus, 

and rail services, whether operated by public transit 

agencies, other community service providers, or local 

business groups—in the planning process. While the 

strategies discussed below are intended to be applicable 

to the specific characteristics of small and mid-sized 

cities, not every action will be appropriate in every 

community. Many strategies also apply to larger cities 

seeking to better integrate transportation systems with 

housing and services.
Chapter IV. Implementation: What is Next?

46 Creating Connected Communities

Strategies are organized within the following five overarching goals:

G.Convene decisionmakers. A multitude of 

different departments and organizations play a role 

in providing affordable housing and transportation 

services in any community. By bringing these 

decisionmakers together, cities can expand local 

capacity and help ensure that local, regional, state, 

federal, and community partners are all working 

toward the common goal of improving the quality 

of public services and the efficiency of public 

spending.

H.Provide multiple transportation options.

Providing a variety of transportation options 

designed to meet local transportation needs is 

critical to ensuring that low- and moderate-income 

residents can access employment, schools, parks, 

and other daily destinations. Both people and cities 

benefit when a car is not required for every trip.

I. Promote accessible affordable housing in 

connected communities. The location and 

design of affordable housing determine the ease 

with which residents can access daily needs. Many 

cities already have existing walkable neighborhoods 

with strong connections to jobs and services. By 

prioritizing the preservation of existing affordable 

housing and making it easier to develop new 

affordable housing in these areas, cities can build 

on existing assets and help strengthen local 

neighborhoods.

J. Support established neighborhoods. In 

addition to quality transportation choices and 

affordable housing, residents must also have 

access to other key destinations and services such 

as medical care, jobs, a healthy environment, 

fresh food, and green space. Many cities already 

have established neighborhoods where most of 

these elements are in place; in other cities, more 

effort may be required to ensure that existing 

neighborhoods offer a full range of services and 

amenities. By focusing on enhancing established 

neighborhoods, cities can build on their existing 

assets, provide additional opportunities for existing 

residents, and improve the efficiency of municipal 

services.

K. Refocus financial resources. Focusing 

public dollars on critical needs and improving the 

alignment between housing and transportation 

investments helps to make optimal use of scarce 

financial resources.

The following sections discuss each goal in turn, and 

include specific strategies, actions, and tools for cities to 

consider.

Goal A. Convene Decisionmakers

Bring together the key agencies involved in transportation and housing planning, 

policy, and investments, and look for regional, state, federal, and community 

partners to help achieve local goals.

Small and mid-sized cities cannot overcome housing 

and transportation challenges on their own. As the case 

studies in Chapter III illustrated, many small and midsized city governments have small staffs with limited 

time and capacity to take on major new projects—

although a small staff size may also make it easier to 

convene all key decisionmakers in the room at the same 

time. In addition, cities do not have control over many 

aspects of the housing and transportation systems. 

This is especially true of small and mid-sized cities, 

which are often particularly reliant on counties, transit 

agencies, state departments of transportation, and other 

independent agencies to provide local services and 

funding.

In most places, the city or other local government 

entity is responsible for building and maintaining 

streets, sidewalks, parks, and other local infrastructure. 
Chapter IV. Implementation: What is Next?

Creating Connected Communities 47

Cities also influence where housing and other 

development occurs through land use planning and 

zoning. Most cities, however, have limited authority 

over key aspects of the local transportation system 

within their own jurisdictions. For example, bus 

providers and other transit agencies are usually 

operated as independent entities, often serving multiple 

cities of various sizes within a county or region. State 

departments of transportation (DOTs) control state 

routes and highways—which serve as Main Street 

in many small towns—and typically get the final 

say in whether a city can build sidewalks or bicycle 

routes along state-owned roads. In addition, local 

governments are rarely directly involved in building 

and maintaining housing. Rather, this function is 

performed by public housing authorities, nonprofit and 

private affordable housing developers, and the private 

market. States, including DOTs and other agencies, 

also allocate some federal funding to small cities that 

larger cities or MPOs in larger regions receive directly, 

such as Transportation Alternatives Program funding 

and Community Development Block Grants (see goal 

E for additional discussion of this issue).

The wide variety of decisionmakers involved in housing 

and transportation planning and policy can lead to 

inefficiencies and missed connections. Cities can ensure 

that internal city departments are working toward a 

common vision, however, and can play a key role in 

convening other decisionmakers around achieving local 

goals. The following strategies facilitate this type of 

collaboration:

• Align city departments around the shared goal 

of linking housing and transportation policy, 

planning, and investment decisions.

• Make housing and transportation integration 

“business as usual.”

• Convene community, local, state, regional, and 

federal partners.

The strategies discussed in this goal focus on improving 

existing processes and looking for opportunities 

to better align ongoing projects wherever possible. 

Nevertheless, while the strategies are intended to be 

doable with limited resources, implementation does 

require leadership, and will work best if a dedicated 

individual or group of individuals takes responsibility 

for convening decisionmakers and starting the 

conversation. Leadership could come from a mayor, 

city manager, city council member(s), and/or key 

staff members—or from you, the person reading this 

guidebook.

Strategy 1. Align city departments 

around the shared goal of linking 

transportation and housing policy, 

planning, and investment decisions.

• Identify key leaders and staff members 

who make decisions related to housing 

affordability and transportation 

connections. Within each city, many different 

departments are responsible for establishing 

policies, drafting plans, and making investment 

decisions that affect the quality and affordability of 

housing, and the ability of residents to access their 

daily needs. Planning department staff members 

influence where development occurs through 

land use plans and zoning policies; public works 

sets priorities for improving streets, sidewalks, 

and other types of public infrastructure; parks 

and recreation staff build and maintain open 

space; and finance department staff coordinate 

the municipal budget, often including the budget 

for capital improvements. Some cities also have 

dedicated housing, transportation, economic 

development, and other staff members who are 

involved directly or indirectly in determining where 

public investments are made and where housing, 

jobs, retail, services, and other land uses are located 

within a community. There may also be key 

partners from other public agencies, such as a local 

transit provider, that should be consulted regularly.
Chapter IV. Implementation: What is Next?

48 Creating Connected Communities

• Establish a process for coordinating 

activities among departments. In some 

communities, this could take the form of a formal 

working group that meets regularly to coordinate 

activities among different departments. Other 

cities may be able to build upon an existing 

process for reviewing investment decisions and 

development proposals for consistency with city 

policy. Depending on the city, the mayor or city 

manager may be in the best position to bring 

together different departments to ensure that 

they collaborate on decisions that affect housing 

and transportation. For cities that have already 

identified the coordination of housing and 

transportation as a priority, the next step could 

be to assign a specific staff person to focus on 

coordinating activities among departments and 

implementing related projects.

• Establish metrics for measuring 

performance. Formal performance metrics can 

help ensure that departments are accountable and 

feel a shared sense of responsibility for success. 

For example, cities can establish goals and track 

progress around metrics such as mode share (the 

percentage of workers driving alone, carpooling, 

bicycling, or walking to work), miles of sidewalks 

and bike lanes available in the community, or 

number of affordable housing residents receiving 

bus passes or other transportation services.

Strategy 2. Make housing and 

transportation integration “business as 

usual.”

• Establish a vision statement that 

articulates the importance of creating 

multimodal connections for all users. A 

clear, inspiring vision for how and why the city 

wants to create multiple transportation options and 

coordinate transportation with affordable housing 

can help guide future activities and mobilize 

support.

• Incorporate the goal of connecting 

affordable housing with multiple modes 

of transportation into appropriate city 

policies. The comprehensive plan, other land 

use planning activities, the Consolidated Plan,43

and the capital improvement budgeting process 

all present opportunities to establish connected 

communities as a citywide priority.

43 States and local jurisdictions that receive formula 

block grant funding from HUD (that is, from the 

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), the 

HOME Investment Partnership (HOME), the Emergency 

Solutions Grant (ESG), and the Housing Opportunities 

for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) programs) are required 

to create Consolidated Plans that serve as a framework 

for identifying housing and community development 

priorities.

Los Angeles Transit Corridors 

Cabinet

In 2012, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio 

Villaraigosa formed a Transit Corridors Cabinet 

(TCC) comprising all key departments in 

the city, including housing, transportation, 

planning, building and safety, and public 

works.

The TCC is charged with ensuring that all 

departments work together to maximize the 

benefit of LA’s transit system by creating, 

preserving, and enhancing “employment, 

economic development, affordable and 

workforce housing, and community services 

along transit.” The TCC’s work plan for 

the first two quarters of 2013 prioritized 

creating complete streets that accommodate 

all modes of travel, creating and preserving 

affordable housing near transit to maintain low 

transportation costs for those most dependent 

on transit, and encouraging mixed-use 

development.

Sources: City of Los Angeles, Press Release, 

November 26, 2012; Los Angeles Transit Corridors 

Cabinet, http://www.losangelesworks.org/

losangelestransitcorridorscabinet.cfm.
Chapter IV. Implementation: What is Next?

Creating Connected Communities 49

• Identify ongoing city projects and 

investments that can be better aligned.

Look for opportunities to build momentum 

by coordinating planning efforts, public works 

investments, and park upgrades. For example, if the 

planning or community development department 

is working with a developer on a new affordable 

housing project, the public works department 

could consider targeting sidewalk, bicycle lane, or 

other transportation improvements to the same area 

to help improve connectivity.

• Consider additional projects and 

programs to create connected 

communities. Goals B through E identify a 

number of actions that cities can take to make 

affordable housing and low- and moderate-income 

neighborhoods more accessible by multiple modes 

of transportation.

Figure 28. In November 2009, the state of 

Ohio and city of Cincinnati convened city 

departments, nonprofits, county and regional 

agencies, and real estate developers in Cincinnati to discuss land use and transit investment strategies to curb regional housing and 

transportation costs.

Image source: CNT, 2009

Coordinating Regional Housing, 

Transportation, and Planning in 

Grand Traverse County, Michigan

In 2007, a group of community partners 

in northwestern Michigan—including the 

Northwest Michigan Council of Governments, 

local colleges and universities, business groups, 

and charitable organizations—began a 3-year 

process to create a regional land use and 

transportation vision. The project culminated 

in 2009 with the release of “The Grand 

Vision,” which identified six guiding principles 

including a regional multimodal transportation 

and a diverse mix of regional housing choices 

with affordable options. This vision helped pave 

the way for Traverse City and Grand Traverse 

County to receive a HUD Community 

Challenge Planning Grant through the 

Partnership for Sustainable Communities in 

2010. The city and county used those grant 

funds to prepare the following studies and 

plans:

• A countywide housing inventory and 

strategy. 

• A new master plan for Grand Traverse 

County that identifies community values 

and strategies to enhance those values.

• A new corridor plan for the city of Traverse 

City that identifies revitalization as a 

priority for five major streets. 

In 2011, the Northwest Michigan Council 

of Governments was awarded a HUD 

Regional Planning Grant, in part to develop 

an implementation framework for the Grand 

Vision.

See the Traverse City case study in Chapter III 

for more information.
Chapter IV. Implementation: What is Next?

50 Creating Connected Communities

Strategy 3. Convene community, local, 

state, regional, and federal partners.

• Communicate to local, regional, and state 

partners the importance of providing 

multiple transportation options to 

affordable housing residents. Bring the 

quality of life, economic, and fiscal benefits of 

creating a connected community to the attention 

of potential partners such as the transit agency, 

housing authority, metropolitan planning 

organization (MPO),44 and state department of 

transportation. This guidebook can serve as a 

starting point for those discussions.

• Identify decisionmaking points where 

coordination can occur. For example, a city’s 

comprehensive planning or capital improvement 

budgeting process can serve as opportunities to 

bring the transit agency, school district, community 

college districts, and other service providers into 

the local land use planning process. Cities should 

also look for opportunities to make their priorities 

known and build partnerships when other agencies 

44 Metropolitan planning organizations are federally 

mandated agencies charged with regional transportation 

planning and allocating federal transportation funding in 

urbanized areas with populations of 50,000 or more.

conduct planning processes—for example, when 

a transit agency is planning new routes, or during 

the MPO’s regional transportation planning 

process.45 As new partners come on board, look 

for opportunities to establish proactive, ongoing 

processes to coordinate decisionmaking. For 

example, the city and transit agency could establish 

a joint process for planning bus routes.

• Facilitate improved communication 

between developers, housing advocates, 

and transit agencies, and encourage 

housing developers to notify the local 

transit agency before and during the 

planning stage of development. Help build a 

working relationship that will ensure open lines of 

communication and collaboration when planning 

new affordable housing or new transit facilities. See 

Goals B and C for more information on specific 

planning activities that these groups can engage in 

together.

45 MPOs are required to conduct Regional Transportation 

Plans, which serve as the long-term blueprint for a 

region’s transportation planning process, typically every 

5 years.

Communicating with Regional Partners in Lakewood, Colorado 

Lakewood, Colorado, is located west of Denver. 

In 2013, the West Rail Line opened, providing a 

new light-rail connection between Lakewood and 

downtown Denver. The West Rail Line presents 

an opportunity for investment in housing and 

transportation connections along the corridor. As 

the light-rail line was being planned, the cities of 

Denver and Lakewood and their respective housing 

authorities—the Denver Housing Authority and 

Metro West Housing Solutions (MWHS)—formed 

the West Corridor Working Group. The working 

group was tasked with creating a transit-oriented 

development (TOD) implementation strategy 

for the corridor to better leverage resources and 

achieve mutually supportive objectives for TOD 

in the West Corridor. The collaboration is now 

being formalized into the West Line Corridor 

Collaborative, a non-profit organization that seeks 

to improve the neighborhoods along the West Rail 

Line by attracting investment and supporting livable 

communities through advocacy and collaboration.

See the Lakewood case study in Chapter III for more 

information.
Chapter IV. Implementation: What is Next?

Creating Connected Communities 51

• Engage low- and moderate-income 

households and community organizations 

in the discussion. Work with affordable 

housing residents and other low- and moderateincome households to understand the specific 

transportation challenges they face, whether 

missing sidewalk connections to a school or 

bus stop, or inadequate transit service in a 

neighborhood. Local neighborhood associations, 

faith-based groups, and other community 

organizations may be able to help facilitate these 

conversations.

Goal B. Provide Multiple Transportation Options

Provide convenient, reliable, and affordable transportation options for affordable 

housing residents and other low- and moderate-income households to access jobs, 

schools, retail, services, and other key destinations.

In many small and midsize communities, getting 

around is easy – as long as you own a car. However, 

as discussed in Chapter II, car ownership can be a 

financial burden that is difficult or impossible to sustain 

for many low-income households. Other residents 

may not have access to a car because they are too 

young, or have health challenges or other impairments 

that prevent them from driving. A well-connected, 

multimodal transportation network can help ensure 

that residents without a car can still get to work, 

school, and other destinations for their daily needs. 

Improving the connectivity of the local transportation 

network also has benefits for the community as a 

whole, providing residents of all ages and abilities with 

the option of walking, bicycling, or taking transit in 

order to save money or improve their physical health.

As discussed in Chapters II and III, understanding 

a community’s location within its region – whether 

it is a regional center, supporting city, or bedroom 

community (as defined 

in Chapter II)—can help 

decisionmakers think about the 

transportation connections that 

residents may need to reach 

job opportunities, community 

colleges, healthcare centers, 

senior centers, schools, childcare, 

or other essential destinations. 

The case studies in chapter 

III provide some examples. 

For instance, in Traverse City, 

Michigan, low-income residents 

who live at the periphery of the 

city struggle to get downtown 

and to other areas in the center 

of the city, where services 

and jobs are concentrated. In 

Gonzales, California, a bedroom 

community, low-income 

residents without cars need 

Figure 29. The Emery-Go-Round, an employer-funded shuttle 

service in Emeryville, California, provides a “last mile” connection between the nearest regional Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) 

station and housing, employers, and shopping in Emeryville. Small 

cities may be able to leverage their resources by working with 

business associations, hospitals, and other local organizations.

Image Source: Strategic Economics, 2010
Chapter IV. Implementation: What is Next?

52 Creating Connected Communities

better transportation alternatives to access employment, 

health care, and shopping located 15 miles away in 

Salinas, the regional center.

Other transportation connectivity needs may 

depend more on the land use context in a specific 

neighborhood than on the city’s overall role in the 

region. Many cities of all types have a historic urban 

core and/or other neighborhoods where residents 

can easily walk or bicycle to shop for groceries, get 

to the park, and meet other daily needs. In these 

neighborhoods, integrating transportation and 

affordable housing to better meet residents’ daily needs 

may involve fixing or filling in missing sidewalks, 

installing safe pedestrian crossings on major arterial 

streets, or adding additional bike lanes to an existing 

bicycle and pedestrian network. On the other hand, 

residents living in neighborhoods with a more 

conventional suburban street network may live too 

far from the local grocery store, library, or elementary 

school to walk, or may find that the only route to walk 

or bicycle to their destination involves a major arterial 

without sidewalks. In these neighborhoods, providing 

local bus service or sidewalks in critical locations may 

be the key to providing residents with alternatives for 

accessing the goods and services they need on a day-today basis.

• Assess the degree to which the existing 

transportation network meets the needs of low- and 

moderate-income riders, and integrate multiple 

modes of transportation into local planning 

processes.

• Coordinate with transit providers to improve 

connections between affordable housing and jobs, 

services, and other destinations.

• Make incremental improvements to facilitate 

walking, bicycling, and taking transit throughout 

the city, prioritizing projects that improve 

connections for affordable housing and other lowand moderate-income residents.

Strategy 1. Assess the degree to which 

the existing transportation network 

meets the needs of low- and moderateincome riders and integrate multiple 

modes of transportation into local 

planning processes.

• At the city or regional level, inventory 

and/or map existing transit services to 

identify gaps in the system and ways 

to improve connectivity. Inventory, and if 

possible map, existing transit routes in relationship 

to affordable housing developments, low- and 

moderate-income neighborhoods, employment 

centers, schools, and other destinations. Include 

Pedestrian-Friendly 

Design Checklist

When a city assesses a neighborhood’s 

pedestrian environment, it should consider the 

following questions:

• Is it practical for residents to reach key 

destinations—schools, grocery stores, parks, 

bus stops, etc.—on foot?

• Are there sufficient crosswalks? Are they 

conveniently spaced at walkable intervals 

and located at intersections where 

pedestrians will want to cross?

• Do walk signals function and provide 

ample crossing time for seniors and 

disabled pedestrians?

• Are speed controls such as speed bumps 

and traffic circles in place?

• Do safety features such as ample street 

lighting exist along sidewalk corridors?

For examples of complete walking audit 

checklists, see http://www.walkinginfo.org/

problems/audits.cfm.
Chapter IV. Implementation: What is Next?

Creating Connected Communities 53

not only local and regional bus and train lines, 

but also paratransit services and shuttles or vans 

operated by senior centers, colleges, business 

associations, or other private entities. Coordinate 

this effort with the existing conditions analysis 

discussed within goal C, strategy 1. Cities, transit 

agencies, and affordable housing developers can 

use this information to identify gaps in service (for 

example, key destinations that are inaccessible by 

transit), opportunities for improving connections 

among different routes or transit providers, and 

priority locations for targeting new bus routes or 

other improvements.

• At the neighborhood level, assess the 

conditions that pedestrians face and 

identify improvements to increase safety 

and walkability. Conduct a walking tour to 

evaluate pedestrian conditions using one of the 

many resources available on line (see “PedestrianFriendly Design Checklist” sidebar). Consider 

the needs of different potential users, including 

senior citizens, disabled pedestrians, and children. 

In general, sidewalks and trails should be well lit, 

wide enough to accommodate local foot traffic, 

and well maintained, with even pavements and no 

obstructions to pedestrian movement such as utility 

poles. Pay particular attention to the pedestrian 

connections to common destinations such as 

schools, grocery stores, parks, and bus stops.

• Integrate transit, pedestrian, and bicycle 

planning in a multimodal transportation 

plan. Many small and mid-sized cities plan for 

different modes of transportation in separate 

documents, or do little or no planning for 

bicycles, pedestrians, or transit. When these 

plans are separate or do not exist, cities may 

miss opportunities—for example, to improve 

bicycle and pedestrian conditions during routine 

roadway maintenance and repair. An integrated 

transportation plan should consider pedestrians, 

bicyclists, and transit passengers of all ages and 

abilities, as well as trucks, buses, emergency 

vehicles, and automobiles.

Strategy 2. Coordinate with transit 

providers to improve connections 

between affordable housing and jobs, 

services, and other destinations.

• Coordinate with local transit agencies to 

develop routes and schedules that meet 

the needs of affordable housing residents 

and other low- and moderate-income 

households. In some cases, transit agencies may 

be able to make relatively minor adjustments 

to services—for example, changing the location 

Improving Bicycle and Pedestrian 

Connectivity in Lake Worth, 

Florida

Lake Worth, Florida, is a small city in Palm 

Beach County with a low-income population, 

limited financial resources, and significant 

infrastructure challenges. Despite these 

challenges, the city has found incremental ways 

to improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity 

as funding becomes available. For example, the 

city is phasing in implementation of its Bicycle 

Master Plan by adopting a policy to include 

bicycle infrastructure whenever a street is 

repaved. Lake Worth has also found success in 

working with partners to plan, build, and fund 

projects. For example, Lake Worth was recently 

awarded a $750,000 grant from the Palm Beach 

Metropolitan Planning Organization to create a 

greenway on an unimproved right-of-way. The 

new greenway will allow students to walk and 

bicycle to Lake Worth High School more safely. 

Palm Beach County School District partnered 

in the grant proposal.

See the Lake Worth case study in Chapter III 

for more information.
Chapter IV. Implementation: What is Next?

54 Creating Connected Communities

Elements of a 

Complete Street

“Complete Streets are streets for everyone. . . . 

People of all ages and abilities are able to safely 

move along and across streets in a community, 

regardless of how they are traveling. Complete 

Streets make it easy to cross the street, walk to 

shops, and bicycle to work. They allow buses 

to run on time, and make it safe for people to 

walk to and from train stations.”

National Complete Streets Coalition

Complete streets are streets that are designed 

and operated to be safe, accessible, and 

convenient for all users. Although complete 

street designs can vary significantly in response 

to local context, some common elements can 

include: 

• Sidewalks

• Bicycle lanes

• Dedicated bus lanes

• Clearly marked, comfortable, universally 

accessible bus stops

• Frequent, safe crosswalks

• Accessible pedestrian signals, including 

user-activated flashing lights at unsignalized crossings

• Median islands, curb extensions, and other 

improvements to shorten crossing distances 

across intersections

• Traffic calming measures, such as narrowing 

roads, reducing speed limits, and installing 

roundabouts.

Source: National Complete Streets Coalition, http://

www.smartgrowthamerica.org/complete-streets/

complete-streets-fundamentals.

of a bus stop—that may make a big difference 

to residents. Other changes—such as adding a 

new bus route or changing schedules—are more 

significant, and may require more systematic 

change. By getting involved in the transit agency’s 

planning process, cities can ensure that their 

residents’ needs are considered.

• Work with transit providers to make bus 

and other transit easy to use for all riders.

An effective transit system is one that operates at 

such high levels of service and convenience that 

people see it as a viable—and even preferable—

alternative to the private automobile. Work with 

transit providers to ensure that service is frequent 

and timely; stops are clearly marked; paths to 

transportation facilities are well lit, safe, and 

universally accessible paths; facilities protect transit 

riders from the elements; and routes and schedules 

are easy to understand.

• Work with community organizations, 

regional and state agencies, and transit 

providers to fill gaps left by traditional bus 

or rail service. Different cities may need to fill 

different gaps. For example, in Gonzales, California 

(Chapter III), providing a formal vanpooling 

program has helped ensure that agricultural workers 

can get to work safely. Other communities may 

need expanded paratransit services to help disabled 

and elderly residents get around. In addition to 

transit agencies, business associations, hospitals, 

other community organizations, the regional 

metropolitan planning organization (MPO), and 

state departments of transportation may play a role 

in augmenting services.

Strategy 3. Make incremental 

improvements to facilitate walking, 

bicycling, and taking transit throughout 

the city, prioritizing projects that 

improve connections for affordable 

housing and other low- and moderateincome residents.
Chapter IV. Implementation: What is Next?

Creating Connected Communities 55

Figure 30. The ease and convenience of the “last mile” connection between a transit stop and 

the traveler’s origin and destination can play a critical role in whether bus or rail is a viable option.

Image source: Reconnecting America, 2013

• Start with low-cost, incremental 

improvements. For example, by painting new 

bike lanes or crosswalks, cities may be able to make 

a significant difference to community connectivity 

and health without incurring significant new 

expenditures.

• Take advantage of roadway maintenance, 

infrastructure projects, and other 

opportunities to improve or retrofit 

existing streets so that pedestrians and 

bicyclists can navigate more safely. 

Cities often have occasion to tear up a street to 

reach a sewer line or to redo the pavement as 

part of regular maintenance. These projects also 

represent opportunities to improve conditions 

for pedestrians and bicyclists. Some cities have 

adopted policies to incorporate pedestrian and 

bicycle safety standards or improvements into all 

road projects. For example, the city of Lake Worth, 

Florida, has adopted a city policy to include bicycle 

infrastructure whenever a street is repaved (see case 

study in Chapter III).

• Focus on the connections between different 

transportation modes and travelers’ origin 

or ultimate destination. In particular, consider 

the connection—known as the “last mile” (Figure 

30)—between a transit stop and the traveler’s origin 

or destination. The ease and time of traveling 

between a bus or train stop and someone’s home, 

workplace, or other destination is a critical factor in 

whether that individual will use transit. Providing 

the “last mile” connection may be as easy as simply 

filling a gap in the sidewalk, as in the example of 

the Lamar Station Crossing Apartments, a 

multifamily, mixed-income housing property 

located just a few hundred feet from a light-rail 

station in Lakewood Colorado (see case study in 

Chapter III). Another potentially simple solution is 

adding bicycle racks on buses, which can allow 

riders to easily access destinations within several 

miles of a bus stop (Figure 31).

• Consider adopting a complete streets 

policy. Complete streets policies are city policies 

that direct transportation planners and engineers 

to design and operate streets to meet the needs 

Figure 31. Bicycle racks on a bus in Cincinnati, 

Ohio.

Image Source: Metro Bus, Cincinnati, Ohio
Chapter IV. Implementation: What is Next?

56 Creating Connected Communities

Figure 32. Lancaster Boulevard in Lancaster, California, before and after the implementation of 

traffic calming and other complete streets features. 

Image source: Lancaster Economic Development Department

of drivers, transit users, pedestrians of all ages 

and abilities, and bicyclists. A strong complete 

streets policy includes a vision for how and why a 

community wants to complete its streets, requires 

that both new and retrofit projects should be 

designed to meet the needs of all users, specifies any 

exceptions, and establishes performance standards.46

46 National Complete Streets Coalition, “Policy Elements,” 

http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/complete-streets/

changing-policy/policy-elements.

Additional Tools 

and Resources

• Housing + Transportation Index assesses 

the affordability of housing in communities 

based upon its location and its associated 

transportation costs. http://htaindex.cnt.org/.

• WalkScore is an online tool that scores 

communities by how easily individuals can access 

goods, services, and transportation via walking. 

The website also provides bike and transit scores. 

http://www.walkscore.com/.

• Framework for Action: Building the Fully 

Coordinated Human Service Transportation 

System provides a guide for coordinating human 

services agencies that support transportation 

with public and private transit providers, 

including self-assessment tools for communities 

and states and a facilitators guide. http://www.

unitedweride.gov/1_81_ENG_HTML.htm.

• NACTO Urban Street Design Guide discusses 

principles, approaches, and tools for constructing 

attractive and multimodal streets and 

communities. http://nacto.org/usdg-2013/.

• NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide 

provides best practices and approaches for cities 

looking to construct safe and practical bike 

infrastructure. http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/

design-guide/.

• Transit in Small Cities: A Primer for Planning, 

Siting, and Designing Transit Facilities in 

Oregon describes specific needs and challenges 

that small cities face in improving the 

performance, access, and effectiveness of their 

transit systems. http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/

TGM/docs/fulltransitprimer4-4-13.pdf.

• Safe Routes to School programs help to design 

and implement safe ways for children to walk or 

bike to school. http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/. 
Chapter IV. Implementation: What is Next?

Creating Connected Communities 57

Goal C. Promote Accessible Affordable Housing in Connected 

Communities

Encourage, enable, and preserve well-designed affordable housing in places that 

are easily accessible by foot, bicycle, and transit.

The location and the design of affordable housing are 

critical factors in determining residents’ transportation 

costs and the ease with which they can access critical destinations. Many small and mid-sized cities 

already have existing walkable neighborhoods with 

strong connections to jobs and services. These neighborhoods, however, often have relatively high property 

values, smaller and more challenging development sites, 

and more complicated development review processes, 

making it more expensive to build housing in established neighborhoods (known as “infill” development) 

than in outlying areas. Given the relatively high cost 

of building infill housing, cities should focus on 

preserving affordable housing that is already located 

in these neighborhoods, and removing barriers such as 

outdated zoning codes and parking requirements that 

contribute to higher development costs.

In addition to the influence of location, the design 

of affordable development can influence residents’ 

mobility options. For example, housing developers 

can make walking more convenient and appealing by 

including retail on the ground floor of a multistory 

building, placing buildings closer together and near the 

sidewalk, and ensuring that the streets and pedestrian 

walkways within a development project form a 

connected network and provide a variety of walking 

routes to common destinations. While small and midsized cities rarely have direct control over the design of 

new affordable housing, cities can put policies in place 

to encourage well-designed projects. Small and midsized cities can also work with local, state, and regional 

partners—including the local public housing authority, 

county housing agency, and state housing agency—to 

make preserving and promoting affordable housing 

in connected communities a priority in planning and 

funding allocation decisions.

The following strategies encourage, enable, and preserve 

high-quality, affordable housing:

• Identify existing affordable housing resources and 

neighborhoods with strong existing connections.

• Work with local, state, and regional partners 

to preserve and promote affordable housing in 

connected communities.

Figure 33. The Park Alameda; resident with a new EasyPass bus pass 

(inset). The Park Alameda, which was 

formerly a motel, is a 62-unit affordable housing development in the 

small city of Alameda, California. The 

project is located in Alameda’s historic downtown district, which offers 

excellent bus service and jobs, retail, 

and services located within walking 

distance. The developer, Resources 

for Community Development, joined 

the local transit agency’s EasyPass 

program, which provides discounted bus passes for all residents. The 

project also includes green and sustainable features such as insulated 

low-emissivity windows and water-heating solar thermal collectors.

Image source: Adam Newacheck, Resources for 

Community Development, 2013; AC Transit, 2013 

(inset)
Chapter IV. Implementation: What is Next?

58 Creating Connected Communities

• Facilitate the development of accessible, affordable 

housing located in connected communities.

Strategy 1. Identify existing affordable 

housing resources in neighborhoods 

with strong existing connections.

• Prepare an inventory of existing 

affordable housing located in connected 

communities. Consider including not only 

subsidized units, but also market-rate units that 

are affordable to low- and moderate-income 

households. As part of the inventory, determine 

how far housing units are located from the 

nearest bus stop or other public transit option, 

schools, grocery stores, healthcare providers 

and other amenities. The inventory should also 

identify any potential hurdles to accessing services 

and amenities, such as long distances, missing 

sidewalks, or other physical barriers to the nearest 

bus stop. Creating a map of existing affordable 

housing in relationship to transit stops, services, 

and amenities can be an efficient way to identify 

these barriers. An example of a housing inventory is 

shown in Figure 35.

• Use the housing inventory and other 

existing conditions assessments to 

prioritize housing, transportation, 

and other investments. Direct local capital 

improvement funds toward improving pedestrian, 

bicycle, and other transportation connections 

around existing affordable housing, and work with 

the local public housing agency, state housing 

agency, and other housing funding partners to 

target affordable housing funding to projects 

located in existing connected communities. 

Coordinate with and educate local housing 

developers to look for opportunities to build 

housing near transit, services, and amenities.

Strategy 2. Work with local, regional, 

and state partners to preserve and 

promote affordable housing in 

connected communities.

• Building on the inventory of existing 

affordable housing, track subsidized 

housing units that are at risk of being 

converted to market rate. Many subsidized 

affordable housing units were built under federal 

or local programs that provided developers with 

funding or incentives, in return for restricting rents 

to affordable levels for low-income households. 

After the term of the initial contract is up, the 

property owner may choose to raise rents to market 

rate. Units that are owned by private property 

Targeting Low-Income 

Housing Tax Credits to 

Preserving and Promoting 

Affordable Housing near Rail and 

Frequent Bus Transit

The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program 

(LIHTC) is the largest single source of funding 

for affordable housing in the United States. 

The tax credits are awarded on a competitive 

basis to developers, and administered by state 

housing agencies. State housing agencies are 

required to adopt annual Qualified Allocation 

Plans that establish criteria for allocating the 

credits. Approximately 25 states currently set 

aside a portion of their LIHTC allocation 

for affordable housing preservation, while 36 

states give preference to or require proximity 

to transit as criteria for receiving the tax 

credits. The LIHTC program has been used 

for numerous preservation projects nationally 

and can play a critical role in building future 

housing near transit.

Source: Center for Transit-Oriented Development and 

the National Housing Trust, “Mixed-Income Housing 

Near Transit, TOD 201”; National Housing Trust, “State 

Policy Toolkit.”
Chapter IV. Implementation: What is Next?

Creating Connected Communities 59

owners and typically are in locations where marketrate rents are relatively high or rising are most at 

risk for conversion. Nonprofit owners—particularly 

those who specialize in affordable housing 

development and management—are more likely 

to extend existing contracts or find other funds 

to maintain affordability, while private property 

owners in places with low market-rate rents may 

not face a significant incentive to convert to market 

rate. By tracking the ownership and contract 

expiration dates of subsidized affordable housing 

on an ongoing basis, cities can be prepared to work 

with property owners, local affordable housing 

developers, and local and state funding partners 

to intervene when properties are at risk of being 

demolished or converted to market-rate rents.

• Use the housing planning process 

to prioritize the preservation and 

development of housing located in 

proximity to rail or frequent bus service. 

Federal law requires jurisdictions to submit several 

types of plans, such as the following, to receive 

federal housing funds:

ű Consolidated Plan. This plan is required for 

cities, urban counties, and states that receive block 

grant funds from the Community Development 

Block Grant (CDBG), the HOME Investment 

Partnership (HOME), the Emergency Solutions 

Grant (ESG), and the Housing Opportunities for 

Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) programs.

ű Public Housing Agency Plan. This plan is 

required for local public housing authorities to 

receive funding from HUD, including Housing 

Choice Vouchers and operating and capital funds.

ű Qualified Allocation Plan. This plan is 

required for state agencies to receive Low-Income 

Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) from the Treasury 

Department.

Including language in these plans about the 

importance of housing preservation and proximity to 

rail and frequent bus transit is the first step toward 

directing federal and other housing funds toward the 

preservation and development of affordable housing 

in connected communities. Cities that receive CDBG, 

HOME, ESG, or HOPWA funds directly—in general, 

cities with populations of at least 50,000—create 

their own Consolidated Plans. Smaller cities should 

work with the county or state agency charged with 

writing the Consolidated Plan to include language on 

preservation and transit proximity, while cities of all 

sizes can work with the local public housing authority 

and state housing agency to prioritize preservation and 

transit proximity in the Public Housing Agency and 

Qualified Action Plans.

Figure 34. Westhaven Park in Chicago, Illinois 

integrated public housing and market-rate 

units into an easily walkable environment 

near transit. The project restored the histor- ical grid of the neighborhood, so that resi- dents can choose to walk, bike, or take transit 

to their destinations.

Image source: CNT, 2011
Chapter IV. Implementation: What is Next?

60 Creating Connected Communities

Affordable Housing in Santa Rosa

At Risk Units

Figure 35. 

Affordable 

Housing Units 

in the city of 

Santa Rosa, 

California, 

from the North 

Santa Rosa 

Station Area 

Specific Plan. 

As part of the 

planning pro- cess, the city 

inventoried 

and mapped 

all the subsi- dized units in 

the city, look- ing specifically 

at which units 

were locat- ed near the 

planned Sono- ma-Marin Area 

Rail Transit 

(SMART) sta- tion and which 

were at risk of 

conversion to 

market rate by 

2019.

Image source: 

Strategic Economics 

and City of Santa 

Rosa, CA, 2011.
Chapter IV. Implementation: What is Next?

Creating Connected Communities 61

Strategy 3. Facilitate the 

development of accessible, 

affordable housing located in 

connected communities.

• Encourage housing developers to 

involve transit providers in the early 

stages of project development. Bring 

together local housing developers with the 

transit agency and encourage transit providers 

to get involved during the planning stage of 

development. For instance, transit providers 

may have insight on the best way to design 

sidewalks, lighting, and benches so that future 

residents can easily access the nearest bus 

station.

• Remove regulatory barriers to 

developing affordable housing in infill 

locations. Lengthy permitting processes, 

inflexible parking requirements, and other 

zoning requirements can make development 

in established neighborhoods more expensive 

and time consuming. Consider streamlining 

the permitting and review processes for 

projects that meet local goals; reducing 

parking requirements for low- and moderateincome units; and adjusting zoning to 

make it easier to build affordable housing 

in established communities with strong 

transportation connections.

• For projects that involve public 

subsidy, consider whether the 

location, design, and transportation 

options offered by the project 

contribute to creating a connected 

community. See the “Affordable Housing 

Design Checklist” for a list of location and 

design elements that cities, local public 

housing authorities, and other agencies should 

consider in allocating funding to specific 

projects.

Affordable Housing 

Design Checklist

To determine whether a proposed housing 

development contributes to creating a connected 

community, consider both the project’s location and 

design.

Project Location. Is the project located within walking 

distance (1⁄4 to 1⁄2 mile) of . . .

• A local bus, commuter bus, or rail station?

• Services and amenities (school, grocery store, 

pharmacy, public library, and/or senior center)?

• Trails, parks, or other recreational areas?

• Project Design. Does the project include . . .

• Housing units affordable to different income 

levels, including low- and moderate-income 

households?

• A street layout designed to encourage walking and 

bicycling, while providing for personal automobile 

use (if the project includes new streets)?

• Sidewalks and pedestrian crosswalks linking 

the housing development to the surrounding 

community, including to the nearest transit stop, 

services, and amenities?

• Elements that support the surrounding streetscape 

and respect the community’s character, including 

buildings that conform to local architectural 

styles and pedestrian-friendly amenities like trees, 

benches, and lighting?

• A mix of uses (for example, ground floor retail or 

services), if appropriate given the location?

• Parking that easily and safely accessible by 

pedestrians, but not visually dominant?

Source: New York State Department of Transportation, “Smart 

Growth Checklist: A Checklist for Proposed Development 

Projects in Your Community,” https://www.dot.ny.gov/

programs/smart-planning/repository/SGCheck_Development_

Print.pdf.
Chapter IV. Implementation: What is Next?

62 Creating Connected Communities

Affordable Housing and Transportation Providers 

Working Together in Traverse City, Michigan

The Village at Grand Traverse Commons is a 130-unit, mixed-use community in Traverse City, Michigan, 

that includes 60 affordable housing units. At the beginning of the project, the developers approached the 

Bay Area Transportation Authority, the local transit provider, to ensure that patrons of the development 

would have transit access. This initial conversation helped secure public transit access for the residents of the 

Village.

See the Traverse City case study in Chapter III for more information.

Additional Tools 

and Resources

• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) provides information, 

tools, programs, and resources on all aspects of 

affordable housing development and preservation 

and federal housing policy. http://www.hud.gov/.

• Mixed-Income Transit-Oriented Development 

Action Guide (MITOD) is an online tool 

for local jurisdictions to foster mixed-income 

communities near planned transit stations. 

http://www.mitod.org/home.php. 

• The Preservation Guide (National Low Income 

Housing Coalition) discusses local policy tools 

for preserving federally assisted housing that 

would otherwise be demolished or converted to 

market rate; includes instructions for helping 

local communities create their own preservation 

databases to track federally assisted housing on 

an ongoing basis. http://nlihc.org/library/other/

preservation/guides/2010. 

• National Housing Trust offers policy solutions to 

preserving affordable housing near transit. http://

www.nhtinc.org/. 

• Housing Policy.org (Center for Housing Policy) 

is an online guide to state and local housing 

policy. Features a variety of tools to address a 

variety of housing needs. http://housingpolicy.

org/.

• National Association of Housing and 

Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO) is a 

professional association of housing and 

community development officials that provides 

training and resources related to affordable 

housing and community development. http://

www.nahro.org/. 
Chapter IV. Implementation: What is Next?

Creating Connected Communities 63

Goal D. Support Established Neighborhoods

Create and support cohesive and adaptable neighborhoods where all people 

have access to high-quality housing, education, employment opportunities, open 

space and recreation, retail, places of worship, health care, fresh foods, and 

transportation. 

In addition to having high-quality transportation 

choices and affordable housing, residents must also 

have access to other key destinations and services 

such as medical care, jobs, a healthy environment, 

fresh food, and green space. These and other elements 

are needed to make a community “complete”—a 

place where people can access everything they need 

for a good quality of life and economic and social 

opportunities. Many cities already have established 

neighborhoods where most of these elements are in 

place; in other cities, more effort will be required to 

ensure that existing neighborhoods offer a full range 

of services and amenities. By focusing on enhancing 

established neighborhoods, cities build on their existing 

assets, provide additional opportunities for existing 

residents, and improve the efficiency of municipal 

services.

This goal aims to support established neighborhoods 

by facilitating compact development, creating places 

for people, and connecting the city’s economic 

development strategy with its transportation 

planning. “Compact development” refers to building 

single-family homes, townhouses, apartments, 

condominiums, and retail and employment uses at 

medium or high densities that are appropriate to the 

local context. Compact development aims to maximize 

the use of available land and provide a mix of uses to 

make it easier for residents to access the goods and 

services they need without driving long distances. 

As discussed within goal C, however, building in 

existing neighborhoods with strong connections to 

jobs and services can be very expensive. Cities can 

make compact development more feasible by adjusting 

outdated zoning codes and removing other regulatory 

barriers.

Investments in walkable, people-friendly places make 

a city more attractive to employers, residents, and 

visitors alike. These types of “placemaking” strategies 

support established neighborhoods and have become 

particularly important in helping small and mid-sized 

cities compete as jobs and workers have become more 

Supporting Established 

Neighborhoods in Portland, Maine

The Bayside neighborhood in Portland, 

Maine, is a historically industrial district 

with a compact, walkable urban environment 

located adjacent to the downtown. In 2000, 

the city of Portland, adopted A New Vision 

for Bayside—a plan to focus new development 

in the neighborhood in order to create an 

“attractive urban gateway featuring a mix of 

uses, compact and intensive development as 

an extension of the downtown.” In addition 

to targeting the neighborhood for new, higher 

intensity development in its land use plans, 

the city successfully pursued federal funding 

for brownfield cleanup and infrastructure 

projects in Bayside. Today, the neighborhood 

is experiencing a boom in office and 

residential development. The new residents 

and workers will be able to take advantage of 

the neighborhood’s strong pedestrian, bicycle, 

and transit connections. At the same time, the 

higher intensity development will help support 

additional retail and services, further enhancing 

the neighborhood’s walkability over time.

See the Portland case study in Chapter III for 

more information.
Chapter IV. Implementation: What is Next?

64 Creating Connected Communities

mobile, and increasingly likely to select locations based 

on quality of life. Finally, cities can help improve access 

to employment for residents by explicitly coordinating 

economic development strategies with transportation 

planning efforts. These strategies are discussed below:

• Facilitate compact development patterns.

• Create “places for people.”

• Connect the city’s economic development strategy 

with its transportation planning.

Strategy 1. Facilitate compact 

development patterns.

• Ensure that zoning supports the 

development pattern the city envisions.

The zoning code should allow for the siting of 

schools, jobs, day cares and other destinations 

in areas with multimodal transportation access. 

Conduct a zoning review to remove barriers to 

locating appropriate nonresidential uses in existing 

neighborhoods.

• Adjust land use regulations to promote 

compact development in established 

neighborhoods. Cities can enable compact 

development by adjusting zoning policies in 

downtowns and other neighborhoods with welldeveloped pedestrian, bicycling routes, and 

convenient bus or other transit connections. 

Consider adjusting height and density standards to 

enable higher intensity development, and enacting 

form-based codes that regulate the design and 

physical form of buildings rather than their use.

• Encourage mixed-use developments. 

Consider allowing mixed-use development to 

occur “by right” (that is, without a variance or 

other special zoning permission) in designated 

districts. Easing the process for approval of mixeduse developments in appropriate locations can help 

to make projects more feasible, saving cities and 

developers time and money.

• Reform parking requirements. Inflexible 

parking requirements can make compact 

development much more expensive. Consider 

adjusting the zoning ordinance to reduce the 

Figure 36. Latham Square in downtown Oakland, California, is an example of placemaking that 

relies on relatively low-cost materials (paint on pavement, planter boxes, and signage made of 

recycled street signs) to create a pedestrian and bike-friendly public plaza. The pilot project 

closed the area off to automobile access and a technical advisory committee made up of city 

staff members, local business owners, residents, and advocacy groups, is currently evaluating 

design configurations of the plaza and intersecting roadways for a potential permanent project 

at the site.

Images source: Strategic Economics, 2013
Chapter IV. Implementation: What is Next?

Creating Connected Communities 65

number of parking spaces required of new 

development in walkable, bikeable places with 

good transit access. Other parking management 

strategies include establishing maximum, rather 

than minimum, parking requirements; allowing 

different land uses ( offices, retail, housing, transit 

stations) to share parking facilities; and encouraging 

the unbundling of parking. Unbundling parking 

separates the cost of parking from the cost of a 

housing unit, thereby freeing residents without 

cars from the costs associated with parking and 

incentivizing the provision of fewer parking spaces.

Strategy 2. Create “places for people.”

• Use “placemaking” strategies to create gathering 

places that are appealing to residents and visitors. 

Placemaking refers to using landscaping, street 

and façade improvements, and the creation of new 

spaces such as plazas and parks to attract people 

to an area. This strategy ideally creates welcoming 

places that can contribute activity to nearby 

commercial areas or serve as outdoor community 

space for residents.

• Implement programming to increase activity in 

established commercial districts. For example, 

concerts, festivals, farmers markets, and other 

activities can be relatively low cost (compared 

with major capital investments) and help bring 

new visitors to a downtown or other commercial 

district, making them more attractive for employers 

and residents.

Strategy 3. Connect the city’s economic 

development strategy with its 

transportation planning.

• Ensure that the department or departments 

responsible for economic development in the 

city or region engage with the transportation 

departments, including the transit agency. 

Economic development strategies need to consider 

how new development or revitalization efforts will 

be made accessible to the larger community.

• Conduct an inventory of jobs currently located 

along major corridors or in the existing Main Street 

or downtown area, which are easier to serve with 

transit. Understanding what types of businesses and 

Additional Tools 

and Resources

Employer-provided commuter benefits 

can save money for both employers and 

employees: http://www.nctr.usf.edu/programs/

clearinghouse/commutebenefits.

PolicyLink Equitable Development Toolkit 

is an online toolkit that provides strategies 

to reverse patterns of segregation and 

disinvestment, prevent displacement, and 

promote equitable revitalization. The toolkit 

includes the Land Use and Environmental 

Tool Group, which provides strategies to 

support commercial districts and meet existing 

residents’ needs. http://www.policylink.org/

site/c.lkIXLbMNJrE/b.5136575/k.39A1/

Equitable_Development_Toolkit.htm.

re:Streets is an online resource providing best 

practices and case studies on mobility and 

access, wayfinding, commerce, social gathering, 

events and programs, play and recreation, 

urban agriculture, green infrastructure, and 

image and identity. http://www.restreets.org.

Smart Growth Network maintains a website 

with resources on smart growth tools and 

funding and grant opportunities. http://www.

smartgrowth.org.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

provides information, tools, and resources on 

smart growth. http://www.epa.gov/dced/index.

htm.
Chapter IV. Implementation: What is Next?

66 Creating Connected Communities

what industries are already located in these places 

allows for the development of strategies to attract 

more jobs to these locations, allowing more people 

to access jobs via transit.

• Focus workforce training centers and programs in 

high-frequency transit corridors and downtown 

areas, and ensure that transit service is available 

at program times (for example, in the evening). 

This will help to ensure that individuals from all 

parts of the region will be able to participate in 

the workforce, thus stabilizing neighborhoods and 

communities.

• Help employers understand the benefits of locating 

near transit. These include access to a broader 

workforce, reduced costs for their employees, less 

need to maintain parking spaces, etc.

Goal E. Refocus Financial Resources

Use existing financial resources more efficiently, seek out additional funding, and 

develop partnerships and programs to facilitate connected communities. Focusing 

public dollars on critical needs such as housing and transportation and better 

coordinating those investments will help to make optimal use of scarce fiscal 

resources.

For many local leaders, the response to the policies 

discussed in this guidebook will be, “good idea, but 

how are we going to pay for that?” Public agencies 

at every level of government are feeling the pinch 

of the recent economic downturn. Even in those 

cities that have not been hit as hard, the need to 

fund ongoing community services and maintain 

existing infrastructure can consume every available 

dollar. Many cities feel constrained in their ability to 

seek out new sources of funding, due to lack of staff 

capacity, complexity of application processes, or lack of 

knowledge about other funding opportunities.

A lack of resources can be a particularly acute 

problem for smaller cities, which often rely in part 

on state revenue sharing and may have a limited 

local tax base. In addition, while federal funding can 

be a critical resource for smaller cities, some federal 

resources that are frequently used to address housing 

and transportation in larger cities are less likely to be 

available in small and mid-sized cities. In addition, 

existing federal sources of funding for transportation 

and housing are constrained and may be reduced 

farther in the future. Grants can be scarce, competitive, 

and unpredictable. Finally, small cities in a larger 

Building Partnerships and Applying for Grants in Gonzales, California.

Gonzales, California, a small city with a population 

of slightly more than 8,000, places a high priority 

on developing partnerships with local business 

associations and local, state, and regional agencies.

To expand its capacity, the city routinely seeks out 

and applies for state and federal grants. For example, 

the city recently worked with the local district office 

of the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans) to develop a work plan and obtain grant 

funding for a Community to School Pedestrian Plan 

to provide children with safe routes to school. In 

2012, the city worked with Monterey County and 

the city of Del Ray Oaks (another small city in the 

county) to become an entitlement community for 

the purpose of receiving Community Development 

Block Grant, or CDBG, funds.

See the Gonzales case study in Chapter III for more 

information.
Chapter IV. Implementation: What is Next?

Creating Connected Communities 67

metropolitan area may face intense competition with 

their neighbors for transportation and other funds that 

are allocated at a regional level.

Cities of every size and type, however, can take steps to 

ensure that they are using public dollars as efficiently 

as possible and are leveraging funding from other 

sources. As discussed in Chapter II, making upfront 

investments in creating connected communities can 

lead to fiscal savings over the long term.

Moreover, as discussed above in goal B, small amounts 

of funding for incremental projects or smaller scale 

neighborhood projects can make a significant difference 

for a city’s residents. For example, improving sidewalks 

around neighborhood-based destinations or striping 

bicycle lanes along a city’s street network are modestly 

sized projects compared with most transportation 

investments, but can go a long way toward making 

a neighborhood or city more connected. This is 

particularly important for small and mid-sized cities, 

as they tend to have fewer available dollars than their 

larger counterparts for large-scale capital investments. 

These smaller scale projects are also a good way to build 

community, political, and partner support for a broader 

range of transportation options by demonstrating the 

benefits of multimodal improvements.

Given the limited staff capacity and financial resources 

of many small and mid-sized cities, the strategies 

included below emphasize looking for state, regional, 

federal, and private-sector funds and partnerships 

that can help expand local capacity, and making 

more efficient use of existing resources. Strategies for 

reorienting financial resources include the following:

• Analyze existing resources and identify 

opportunities to use them more efficiently.

• Actively seek out federal and other funding 

opportunities.

• Develop partnerships and programs to facilitate 

connected communities.

Strategy 1. Analyze existing resources 

and identify opportunities to use them 

more efficiently.

• Reassess current uses of existing resources. 

Are existing transportation and housing resources 

being used for the highest priority projects? 

Or are there funds that can be re-deployed for 

neighborhood improvements? Funding sources 

with broad eligibilities (such as Community 

Development Block Grants) are the most 

promising for this purpose, since they can be used 

for a wide variety of projects. It is important to 

review the eligible uses of all funding sources, 

however, because it may be that the needed 

improvements would qualify for funding from an 

unexpected source.

• Look at current activities and seek lower 

cost ways to get things done. Can projects 

be done more efficiently or at a lower cost? Can 

operations and maintenance be accomplished 

more efficiently? Some types of street and utility 

improvements have the potential to reduce 

infrastructure and utility maintenance costs 

over time (for example, bioswales, green streets, 

State Transportation 

Funds 

Taxes on gasoline, which every state collects are 

one of the most important sources of funding 

for transportation projects at the state level. In 

some states, those tax revenues can be used for 

a variety of projects in addition to roads and 

highways, including transit and bicycle and 

pedestrian facilities. In other states, however, 

all state gas tax dollars are reserved for highway 

projects. Local leaders seeking state funding for 

nonhighway projects should work with partners 

to ensure that state policies on the use of state 

gas taxes are as flexible as possible.
Chapter IV. Implementation: What is Next?

68 Creating Connected Communities

Cheat Sheet: Key Federal Housing, Infrastructure, and Transportation 

Programs

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA)

• Community Facilities Grants. Assistance in the 

development of essential community facilities 

in rural areas and towns of up to 20,000 in 

population.

• Rural Community Development Initiative. 

Technical assistance for nonprofit organizations 

and low-income rural communities to improve 

housing and community facilities in rural areas.

U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD)

• Choice Neighborhoods Initiative Planning 

Grants. Funding for the development of 

comprehensive plans to link affordable 

housing with high-quality education, public 

transportation, good jobs and safe streets.

• Community Development Block Grants 

(CDBG). Formula grants to local governments 

for community and economic development 

activities.

• Federal Housing Administration (FHA). 

Insures single-family housing and a variety of 

multifamily family housing projects, including 

mixed-income multifamily housing projects.

• HOME Program. formula funding to create 

affordable housing for low-income households, 

in the form of direct assistance or loan 

guarantees.

• HOPE VI Main Street Program. Assistance for 

revitalization of a historic or traditional central 

business district by replacing unused commercial 

space with affordable housing units.

• Section 108 Loan Guarantees. Source of 

financing for CDBG-eligible communities 

economic development, public facilities, and 

other eligible large-scale physical development 

projects.

• State Administered CDBG. For cities with a 

population of less than 50,000 or counties with 

population of less than 200,000.

U.S. Department of Transportation 

(DOT)

• New Starts / Small Starts (FTA). Competitive 

program to help build light rail, commuter 

rail, streetcar, bus rapid transit, and rapid bus 

systems.

• Surface Transportation Program (FHWA). 

Flexible funding program that can help pay for 

roads, bridges, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian 

projects.

• Transportation Alternatives (FHWA). Eligible 

uses include bicycle and pedestrian projects and 

transportation station rehabilitation.

• Transportation Investments Generating 

Economic Recovery—TIGER (DOT). Funds 

innovative, multimodal projects.

• Urbanized Area Formula Funds (FTA). Provides 

funds for purchases rehab, and replacement of 

transit vehicles, equipment, and facilities.

U.S. Department of Treasury

• Low-Income Housing Tax Credits. Generate 

equity capital for the construction and 

rehabilitation of affordable rental housing.

For more information about federal funding 

opportunities, see Reconnecting America’s online 

resource center: http://www.reconnectingamerica.

org/resource-center/federal-grant-opportunities/.
Chapter IV. Implementation: What is Next?

Creating Connected Communities 69

drought-tolerant landscaping, and porous 

pavements).

• Identify sources of funds that can be used 

together to achieve a common goal. Some 

revenue sources (for example, federal grants, certain 

bond funds) can be used only for specific purposes, 

such as transportation infrastructure. Consider 

whether other public or private resources can be 

used on complementary activities, such as housing 

development or green space. Together, these 

different revenue sources can have a greater impact 

than if they are deployed separately.

• Establish clear guidelines for future uses 

of existing revenue sources that prioritize 

building the connections needed between 

affordable housing and transportation choices. For 

example, cities can target their affordable housing 

dollars to locations near transit.

• Ensure that capital investments in schools, 

housing, transportation, and economic 

development are coordinated and that 

each investment supports the city’s broader 

vision. Using cross-sector working groups or 

teams can be an effective way to achieve this goal.

Strategy 2. Actively seek out federal 

and other funding opportunities.

• Seek out funding from federal programs

such as Transportation Alternatives, the Surface 

Transportation Program, New Starts/Small Starts, 

the Urbanized Area Transit Formula Program, 

Historic Preservation Credits, and Economic 

Development Administration funds. Although 

federal programs, like local ones, are facing 

fiscal pressures, many grants are still available to 

help support planning and building connected 

communities. Some grant programs require 

local agencies to apply directly to the federal 

government; however, many programs provide 

funding directly to states or metropolitan planning 

organizations, from which local agencies must 

request funds. If local staff capacity is an issue, 

partner with other jurisdictions or agencies that 

may have more experience applying, or seek 

technical assistance from the federal agency. Many 

federal agencies also have staff members available 

to help smaller communities navigate the grant 

process, and some federal and state programs 

provide credit assistance and other financing tools 

in addition to direct grants and loans.

• Research programs at the state or regional 

level for which your city may qualify. Some 

states have grant or credit programs to support 

better linkages between transit and development. 

In other places, states have allowed cities to set up 

special tax districts to help finance certain projects.

• Don’t be afraid to go to the voters with a 

good plan. Residents are often willing to support 

increased taxes for specific projects that have clearly 

articulated benefits. For example, from 2000 to 

2009, 70 percent of transportation ballot measures 

passed nationwide, twice the approval rate of all 

ballot measures.

Strategy 3. Develop partnerships 

and programs to facilitate connected 

communities.

• Build partnerships with private or 

nonprofit organizations. Partnering with 

private and nonprofit institutions can provide 

a city with access to new funding sources that 

are not directly tied to local real estate market 

conditions, tax revenues, or state or federal policy. 

Hospitals, universities, and major employers have 

all been known to provide funding for projects 

when the project will provide a direct benefit for 

them (for example, workforce housing or improved 

transportation options for staff).

• Create new programs targeted to 

addressing specific challenges. For example, 

if the transit system lacks sufficient bus shelters, 

explore the possibility of partnering with an 
Chapter IV. Implementation: What is Next?

70 Creating Connected Communities

Finding New Partners: The Mountain Link Story

The Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority (NAIPTA) recently launched 

the Mountain Link, a new rapid bus system in Flagstaff, Arizona. The success of this project was the 

result of strong working relationships among NAIPTA, the 

community, elected officials, the Flagstaff Metropolitan 

Planning Organization, the city of Flagstaff 

government, and Northern Arizona 

University (NAU). In addition to 

receiving local tax dollars for the 

Mountain Link from a successful 

ballot measure, NAIPTA received 

$765,000 for the project from 

NAU. The Mountain Link rapid 

bus connects NAU’s campus with 

downtown Flagstaff.

Image source: Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority, 2012

advertising firm to raise revenues for new 

shelters by selling ad space on them. If property 

values in established neighborhoods with good 

transportation connections are high and there is 

a risk that low-income families may be displaced, 

develop programs such as land banking to buy 

sites near transit or planned transit to be used 

for affordable housing. If the challenge is lack of 

developer interest in downtown locations, develop 

incentives to help spur economic activity in those 

areas.
Appendices

Creating Connected Communities 71

Appendix A. Annotated Bibliography

1. Resources Specifically Geared to Small- and Mid-Sized 

Communities

City of Rochester, New York. “The MidSize City: Exploring Its Unique Place in 

Urban Policy. A Summary of the Rochester 

Conversation on Mid-Size Cities.” Rochester, 

NY, 2002. http://www.livable.org/storage/documents/

reports/Other/The_Mid-Sized_City_Exploring_its_

Unique_Place_in_Urban_Policy.pdf

A summary of a conference on mid-sized cities and urban 

policy that aimed to characterize mid-sized cities and their 

specific challenges in the areas of equity, smart growth and 

regionalism, economic development, and governance. 

Mid-sized cities are defined as having a population between 

100,000 and 300,000 in a Metropolitan Statistical Area 

of 1 million or more people. The conference summary 

characterizes mid-sized cities as Forgotten middle—

cities that have important roles in regional and national 

economies but do not get as much attention as their larger, 

world-class counterparts; Hub of mid-sized metro—cities 

that serve as the cultural, economic and governmental 

center of a mid-sized metropolitan area; Thinning city—

cities with a stagnant or declining population, located in a 

metropolitan region where the population is being spread 

thinly across an ever-larger area; and Divided city—places 

that are small, yet large enough so that divisions of income, 

race, and class have reached a critical mass.

Ferguson, Gary. Characteristics of Successful 

Downtowns: Shared Attributes of Outstanding 

Small and Mid-Sized Downtowns. Research 

findings conducted for the Cornell University 

Civic Fellows Programs. Ithaca Downtown 

Partnership, September 2005. http://www.

tannermooredesign.com/downtownbtv_WP/wpcontent/uploads/2009/06/characteristics-of-successfuldowntowns.pdf

This report looks at 11 case studies of small- and 

mid-sized cities that have a regional and national 

reputation for outstanding downtown areas, and 

seeks to understand the attributes and strategies for 

creating successful downtowns. Mid-sized cities are 

defined as those with population between 25,000 

and 250,000. While no single organizational model 

exists, commonalities among successful downtowns 

in small- and mid-sized cities include the presence of 

multiple traffic generators such as universities, public 

services, business districts, and entertainment centers; 

a walkable, pedestrian scale; a mix of different uses 

integrated into the downtown fabric; an active public/

private commitment to planning and investing in the 

future of downtown; and strong, adjacent residential 

neighborhoods.

Reconnecting America. Mid-Sized Cities on 

the Move: A Look At the Next Generation of 

Rapid Bus, Bus Rapid Transit, and Streetcar 

Projects in the United States, December 

2012. http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/

Uploads/20121206midsizefinal.pdf

This report focuses on mid-sized cities that are investing 

in their transit network to improve connectivity 

through the “next generation” of transit: rapid bus, bus 

rapid transit (BRT), streetcars, and other innovative 

services. The report defines mid-sized cities as those 

with populations between 50,000 and 250,000, and 

offers a typology of mid-sized cities based on their role 

in the region. Through an analysis of 14 case studies, 

the report presents best practices in transit planning 

and funding strategies, and makes recommendations 

for maximizing the benefits of new transit for cities. 

Compared with larger cities, mid-sized cities are less
Appendices

72 Creating Connected Communities

economically diverse; often struggle to retain residents; 

have a smaller tax base and fewer resources; usually 

are less expensive and less burdened by congestion; 

have more friendly places; and more likely to have bus 

service than rail. Recommendations for an innovative 

approach to transit service in mid-sized cities include 

presenting transit as part of an overall vision for the 

community; choosing the mode that best fits the 

city’s needs; communicating all benefits upfront; 

developing a good relationship between the land-use 

department and the transit agency; picking a route with 

potential; making the service attractive and convenient 

to riders; seeking early community input; working 

with businesses, institutions, property owners, and 

developers; enacting supportive zoning to facilitate 

ridership; and being creative in seeking financial 

support.

Smart Growth America. City Versus 

Suburban Growth in Small Metro Areas: 

Analysis of U.S. Census Data in Metropolitan 

Statistical Areas Under 1 Million People, 

December 2012. http://www.smartgrowthamerica.

org/documents/city-versus-suburban-growth-in-smallmetro-areas.pdf

This is a followup to a Brookings Institution report that 

found that cities in the nation’s 51 largest metropolitan 

areas are growing faster than their suburbs for the 

first time in decades. This research focuses on smaller 

Metropolitan Statistical Areas with a population 

between 150,000 and 1 million, which have at least 

one primary city of at least 50,000 people. The report 

finds that population in small metropolitan areas grew 

from 2010 to 2011, and growth in these regions was 

likewise faster in cities than in suburbs. It also finds 

that the smaller the metropolitan area, the greater the 

growth. Small metropolitan areas in the Heartland 

(Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North 

Dakota, and South Dakota) experienced the strongest 

growth. The report briefly highlights five case studies 

to explore possible drivers of this growth: downtown 

revitalization, cultural and artistic vibrancy, and smart 

growth strategies.

Texas Tech Center for Multidisciplinary 

Research in Transportation. Synthesis of 

Successful Bicycle Planning in Mid-Size 

Cities. Technical Report for the Texas 

Department of Transportation, January 

2011. http://www.depts.ttu.edu/techmrtweb/Reports/

Complete%20Reports/0-6582-1_revised.pdf

This paper synthesizes successful practices of bicycle 

planning in mid-sized cities, including reviews of 

bicycle practices in the United States and successful 

experiences in planning, design, and implementation 

of bicycle facilities. Mid-sized cities are defined as 

those with population between 100,000 and 300,000. 

The research team conducted a survey of successful 

bicycle policies and practices in the United States, 

and identified common problems and key factors for 

promoting bicycling transportation. The paper presents 

several key findings: funding, culture, education, and 

engineering are equally important for promoting 

bicycling; funding and consistent commitment are the 

primary issues for transportation agencies, while safety 

is the primary concern for bicyclists; and issues and 

solutions for both bicycle users and city officials are 

fairly consistent across cities of various sizes. The paper 

also analyzes possible strategies and their effectiveness: 

having a bicycle Level of Service ordinance has little 

impact on success; bike plans are underused and 

should be used more effectively in mid-sized cities; and 

mid-sized cities might benefit from the introduction 

of a dedicated bicycle advocate employed by a 

transportation authority.
Appendices

Creating Connected Communities 73

2. Reports That “Make the Case” for Connecting Affordable Housing 

and Transportation

Center for Housing Policy and Center for 

Neighborhood Technology. Losing Ground: 

The Struggle of Moderate-Income Households 

to Afford the Rising Costs of Housing and 

Transportation, October 2012. http://www.nhc.

org/media/files/LosingGround_10_2012.pdf

This report analyzes the housing and transportation 

cost burdens of moderate-income households living 

in the 25 largest metropolitan areas at the end of the 

decade. It assesses the impact on combined housing 

and transportation costs of the rapid rise and fall of 

home prices during the 2000s, the recent rebound 

in rents, and the nation’s increased suburbanization 

during the past decade. It finds that housing and 

transportation costs increased more than income from 

2000 to 2010, and moderate-income households are 

spending a disproportionate share of their incomes (59 

percent, on average) on housing and transportation. 

The report also suggests some strategies to reduce 

the combined cost of housing and transportation, 

including the preservation of existing affordable homes 

in location-efficient areas; regulatory reforms to reduce 

the cost of creating new housing in location-efficient 

areas; incentives or requirements to include affordable 

housing within new development in location-efficient 

areas; land acquisition assistance to facilitate affordable 

homes near transit stations, job centers, and other 

amenities; mechanisms for ensuring long-term 

affordability; and policies that capture a portion of 

the value generated by public investments to support 

affordable homes in location-efficient areas.

Center for Transit-Oriented Development. 

Mixed-Income Housing Near Transit: 

Increasing Affordability with Location 

Efficiency, September 2009. http://

www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/

Uploads/091030ra201mixedhousefinal.pdf

Makes the case for the importance of promoting 

mixed-income housing near transit and explains 

how increased demand for housing in walkable 

neighborhoods is creating barriers to providing and 

maintaining affordable, transit-oriented housing. 

Provides 11 strategies at various geographic levels that 

are proving successful in ensuring housing affordability 

near transit. Strategies include incentives for stationarea planning or zoning, public/private partnerships, 

targeting existing funding for affordable housing to 

transit corridors, inclusionary housing ordinances, 

providing points in the low-income housing tax 

credit allocation process for proximity to transit, 

promoting infill development in transit zones, using 

value-capture mechanisms to fund affordable housing, 

land acquisition/banking funds, incentive-based 

zoning, tax increment financing, and reduced parking 

requirements.

Center for Transit-Oriented Development. 

Preserving and Promoting Diverse TransitOriented Development Neighborhoods, 

October 2006. http://www.cnt.org/repository/

diverseTOD_FullReport.pdf

This report outlines the benefits of mixed-income 

transit-oriented development (TOD), the challenges 

of seizing the mixed-income TOD opportunity, and 

practical recommendations for creating more mixedincome housing in transit zones. Suggested strategies 

include instituting coordinated government programs 

for diverse TOD, targeting affordable housing and 

mixed-income developments to transit zones and 

corridors, using transportation policies and subsidies 

to encourage and fund affordable housing near transit, 

using planning tools to increase housing production at 

higher densities, accelerating efforts to preserve existing 

rental housing near transit, marrying efforts to reduce 

the cost of energy and produce affordable housing 

with efforts to promote TOD, educating consumers 
Appendices

74 Creating Connected Communities

about the cost of transportation and its effects, and 

developing new financing products and developer and 

investor capacity to deliver mixed-income TOD.

Center for Transit-Oriented Development. 

Realizing the Potential: Expanding Housing 

Opportunities Near Transit, April 2007.

http://ctod.org/pdfs/2007RealizingPotential.pdf

This study discusses how to strengthen the ties between 

affordable housing and TOD, with an emphasis on 

demand generated by households of different types and 

income levels. It provides a set of recommendations to 

federal, state and local policy makers and practitioners 

for enhanced coordination of housing goals with transit 

investments. It focuses on five case studies: Boston, 

Charlotte, Denver, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and Portland. 

The main barriers to tying affordable housing to 

TOD include high or increasing land prices around 

stations, lack of capital among affordable housing 

developers to acquire and hold land, limited funding 

for building new affordable housing, the complex 

financing structures that are needed for mixed-income 

and mixed-use projects, high development costs due to 

the need for land assembly and rezoning, costly parking 

requirements, and community opposition to density 

and affordable housing. Recommended strategies 

include identifying and using TOD opportunities, 

providing incentives that help catalyze the market, 

removing regulatory barriers, coordinating housing and 

transportation; and improving local technical capacity 

and data collection.

Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional 

Policy. Maintaining Diversity in America’s 

Transit-Rich Neighborhoods: Tools 

for Equitable Neighborhood Change. 

Northeastern University, October 2010. http://

www.dukakiscenter.org/storage/TRNEquityFull.pdf

Addresses the relationship between transit-rich 

neighborhoods (TRNs) and neighborhood diversity, 

and investigates the gentrification process and the 

displacement of low-income households that can 

follow transit investments. The gentrification process 

can cause higher housing cost burdens, especially 

for renters, and an influx of car-owning households 

who are less likely to use transit. The report also 

offers a policy toolkit for equitable TRNs designed to 

directly address the most likely drivers of undesirable 

neighborhood change in TRNs. Tools are organized 

into three categories: planning tools, housing market 

tools, and transportation management tools; a case 

study is provided for each. Planning tools include 

a comprehensive transit-oriented development 

strategy, community benefits agreements, community 

engagement, coordinated planning by local government 

and transit agencies, and transit corridor planning. 

Housing market tools include TOD acquisition funds, 

housing trust funds and other acquisition funds, 

LIHTCs, corridor-based tax increment financing 

districts, inclusionary zoning, incentive programs for 

housing production, and incorporating affordable 

housing in joint development. Transportation 

management tools include transit incentives for 

housing developments, reduced parking requirements 

for residential development, unbundling the price of 

parking, and car sharing.

Reconnecting America and National Housing 

Trust. Preserving Opportunities: Saving 

Affordable Homes Near Transit, 2007.

http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/about/conplan/pdf/

savingtransit.pdf

This report analyzes federally assisted (Section 8) 

affordable housing units near transit in eight cities: 

Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Denver, New York City, 

Portland, St. Louis, and Seattle. More than 100,000 

units assisted through the federal Section 8 program 

are located in close proximity to rail stations. Most of 

those units are covered by Section 8 rental assistance 

contracts set to expire by the end of 2012, posing the 

risk that landlords may opt out of the program to 

capitalize on market-rate rents.
Appendices

Creating Connected Communities 75

Reconnecting America. Locating Affordable 

Housing Near Transit: A Strategic Economic 

Decision. Policy Brief, September 2012.

http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/

Uploads/20120904AHpolicybrief.pdf

This policy brief compiles recent research to 

demonstrate that one of the most economically 

efficient strategies for providing public services is 

to ensure that housing near public transportation is 

affordable to people with a range of incomes. The 

brief lists the economic benefits of bringing affordable 

housing and transit together, and provides policy 

recommendations to federal agencies, regional and 

local jurisdictions, and transit agencies. The economic 

benefits of affordable housing include creating jobs 

and spending in the local economy, attracting new 

employers and skilled labor, increasing revenues for 

states and localities, and reducing government spending 

by promoting sustainable and stable homeownership. 

Transit creates jobs, stimulates development, boosts 

business revenues, benefits local and state revenues, 

saves employers money, and helps conserve energy 

and decrease pollution. Providing affordable housing 

near transit achieves all of these benefits, and frees 

up time for health-promoting activities and improves 

access to medical care. Transit agencies also benefit 

from increased ridership, increased competitiveness for 

federal grants, and reduced transit system costs.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Transit Administration. “Forging TransitBicycle-Pedestrian Partnerships for Livable, 

Sustainable Communities.” Transportation 

Planning Capacity Building Program, Peer 

Roundtable. San Antonio, TX, 2010. http://

www.planning.dot.gov/peer/SanAntonio/Bicycle_

TransitMPOs_2010.pdf

This report summarizes presentations and discussions 

from a roundtable discussion on “Forging TransitBicycle-Pedestrian Partnerships for Livable and 

Sustainable Communities” held in conjunction with 

the American Public Transportation Association 

(APTA) Annual Meeting in San Antonio, Texas, in 

October 2010. It presents key concepts shared by 

panelists and the policy recommendations that emerged 

from the roundtable session.

3. Other Resources on Affordable Housing, Jobs, and Transit

Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program. 

Missed Opportunity: Transit and Jobs 

in Metropolitan America. The Brookings 

Institution, May 2011. http://www.brookings.

edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2011/5/12%20

jobs%20and%20transit/0512_jobs_transit.pdf

This is the first report from a data collection effort that 

resulted in a comprehensive database of schedule and 

geospatial data for all transit systems in the nation’s 

100 largest metropolitan areas. The report explores 

how well and how often transit serves neighborhoods 

in these metropolitan areas, and how many and what 

kinds of jobs are accessible via transit within a 90 

minute commute. It also assesses the regional and 

local factors that relate to these measures of transit 

access and job connectivity. The report finds that 

70 percent of residents live in neighborhoods with 

access to transit, but rush hour frequency is low (10 

minutes), and, on average, only about 30 percent of the 

metropolitan area jobs can be reached via transit within 

a reasonable time. Suggested strategies for improving 

transit access to jobs include considering job access 

in transportation decisions; focusing on bus rapid 

transit (BRT) and buses, especially in the short term; 

encouraging company-owned transportation services; 

and promoting ride sharing and carpooling. Beyond 

the transportation arena, communities can integrate 

land use, housing, and transportation planning; 

explicitly address transit accessibility in growth policy; 

focus on vulnerable populations; and deploy data and 

technology for decisionmaking.
Appendices

76 Creating Connected Communities

Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program. 

Where the Jobs Are: Employer Access to Labor 

by Transit. The Brookings Institution, July 

2012. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/

files/papers/2012/7/transit%20labor%20tomer/11%20

transit%20labor%20tomer%20full%20paper.pdf

This study analyzes the transit connectivity of 

metropolitan labor pools to jobs in the country’s 

100 largest metropolitan areas. It explores the share 

of jobs that are located near transit networks, and 

the size of the labor force within reach of those job 

locations via transit. The report finds that more 

than three-fourths of the jobs in these metropolitan 

areas are in neighborhoods with transit service, 

but, on average, a job location is reachable with 

a 90-minute transit commute by only 27 percent 

of the workforce, signaling a disconnect between 

jobs and housing. This phenomenon is worse for 

suburban areas, where job access rates are usually even 

lower. To address the disconnect, the report suggests 

including job locations in investment decisions; 

seeking private financial support, for example, valuecapture techniques; promoting employer-sponsored 

transit services; encouraging job development in 

transit-friendly suburban locations; incentivizing 

higher density development in suburbs; reforming 

governance to match transit service areas with regional 

economies; and investing in data systems to improve 

decisionmaking.

Center for Housing Policy. Public Transit’s 

Impact on Housing Costs: A Review of the 

Literature. Insights from Housing Policy 

Research, August 2011. http://www.nhc.org/

media/documents/TransitImpactonHsgCostsfinal_-_

Aug_10_20111.pdf

This report summarizes research exploring the ways 

in which public transit has been shown to influence 

housing costs for owners and renters in the United 

States. It finds that proximity to public transit leads to 

higher home values and rents. The magnitude of this 

impact is much debated and depends on a number of 

factors, but, in general, higher housing costs correlate 

with better transit service (for example, fast, frequent 

service that connects to important destinations), 

supportive land uses, and a public commitment to 

maximize development potential near transit. Suggested 

strategies to mitigate rising costs include affordable 

housing preservation, inclusionary zoning, tax 

increment financing, early-stage land acquisition, longterm affordability, and conditional FTA transportation 

funding.

Center for Transportation Studies. 

Maximizing the Benefits of Transitway 

Investment. University of Minnesota 

Humphrey School of Public Affairs, 

September 2012. http://www.cts.umn.edu/

Research/featured/transitways/maximizing/

This report examines the current fixed-route transit 

system in the Twin Cities area to assess the extent to 

which it is providing the region’s workers with access 

to jobs and its employers with access to labor. It 

focuses on “competitive clusters” of jobs, defined as 

a “geographically proximate group of interconnected 

companies and associated institutions in a particular 

field, linked by commonalities and complementarities.” 

The report analyzes different growth scenarios to 

identify how to maximize the return on investment in 

14 transitways planned for 2030. The report includes 

the following main findings: more than 80 percent 

of competitive cluster jobs are within a one-half-mile 

radius of transit stations, but only between 10 and 40 

percent are served by high-frequency transit service; on 

average, about 7 percent of jobs are accessible within a 

60-minute transit ride in the morning peak period; the 

share of workers that any given employer has access to 

via transit is very limited (less than 15 percent) outside 

the downtown; job accessibility by transit is higher for 

blocks with lower median income, but this finding is 

mostly driven by the large proportion of low-income 

populations living in the city center; the 2030 transit 
Appendices

Creating Connected Communities 77

system will increase job accessibility, and the highest 

gains will be achieved if population and jobs are 

concentrated within the Interstate (I)-494/I-694 loop 

and near transit stations; and job concentration will 

have a larger impact than housing concentration on 

improving job accessibility.

Enterprise, National Housing Trust, 

and Reconnecting America. Preserving 

Affordable Housing Near Transit: Case 

Studies from Atlanta, Denver, Seattle 

and Washington, D.C., 2010. http://

www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/

preservingaffordablehousingneartransit2010.pdf

This report is designed to help community leaders, 

CDCs, and nonprofit affordable housing developers 

engage in preserving affordable housing near transit. 

It describes ways in which metropolitan areas are 

addressing preservation challenges and opportunities, 

and identifies the strategies and tools communities 

can use to preserve affordable housing in transit-rich 

neighborhoods. The study focuses on four metropolitan 

areas with current commitments to expanding transit 

service: Atlanta, Denver, Seattle, and Washington, 

D.C. Strategies for preserving affordable housing 

near transit include acquiring land/buildings close 

to planned transit before prices increase; targeting 

at-risk, affordable properties near planned transit 

for conservation; and targeting physically distressed 

properties in appreciating neighborhoods. Suggested 

tools include acquisition funds, housing trust funds, 

tenants’ right of first refusal, land banking authority, 

inclusionary zoning, and joint agency planning. 

Basic first steps that can be taken include creating an 

affordable housing inventory, identifying acquisition 

resources, assessing repositioning resources, and 

mapping out regional strategies.

International City/County Management 

Association. Putting Smart Growth to 

Work in Rural Communities, 2010. http://

reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/2010_

smartgrowthrural.pdf

This report shows how smart growth approaches can be 

adapted and applied in the rural context, particularly 

in times of change. It identifies key issues faced by five 

different types of communities: gateway communities, 

resource-dependent communities, edge communities, 

traditional Main Street communities, and secondhome and retirement communities. The main 

challenges that these communities face include fewer 

farms and farmers, loss of forest land, rapid growth 

at metropolitan edges, shrinking population in other 

areas, a lack of transportation options for accessing 

jobs and services, and limited planning capacity. The 

report provides smart growth strategies and policy 

tools for rural decisionmakers who want to ensure that 

economic opportunity and growth meet the needs 

of new and current residents and businesses without 

fundamentally altering community character. Smart 

growth strategies are organized around three broad 

goals: support the rural landscape, help existing places 

thrive, and create great new places.

4. Resources Focused on Tools and Strategies

Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program. 

Transit Access and Zero-Vehicle Households. 

The Brookings Institution, August 2011.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/files/rc/

papers/2011/0818_transportation_tomer/0818_

transportation_tomer.pdf

Using the same dataset as the Missed Opportunity 

study (100 largest metropolitan areas), this second 

report focuses on households that do not own a car 

and analyzes their characteristics. It then examines 

how many of these zero-car households have access 

to transit and how well transit connects them with 

metropolitan job opportunities. The analysis finds 
Appendices

78 Creating Connected Communities

that zero-vehicle households constitute about 10 

percent of all households; most of them live in cities 

and earn lower incomes, and 90 percent of them live 

in a neighborhood with transit access (a much higher 

share than households with a vehicle). On average, 

however, they are connected to only 40 percent of 

the metropolitanwide jobs within a 90-minute transit 

commute.

Center for Housing Policy. A Heavy Load: 

The Combined Housing and Transportation 

Burdens of Working Families, October 2006.

http://www.nhc.org/media/documents/pub_heavy_

load_10_06.pdf

This report analyzes the tradeoff that households 

face between paying a greater share of household 

income for housing, or enduring longer commutes 

and higher transportation costs. Uses the H+T® 

Affordability Index to study the combined burden 

of housing and transportation costs on working 

families in 28 metropolitan areas; a combined housing 

and transportation cost of 57 percent of income 

is consistent across regions for this population. 

The report profiles households that are living in 

neighborhoods with different combinations of housing 

and transportation costs, showing that families who 

live in places with both high housing costs and high 

transportation costs are predominantly moderateincome renter households with limited transit options 

and lower quality of life. The report provides some 

policy recommendations to address these issues.

Center for Housing Policy. Local Policy 

Options to Support Sustainable and 

Equitable Development. Ideas for Housing 

Policy and Practice, September 2011. http://

nhc.org/media/documents/ORAMlocal_final2.pdf

This paper is part of a series of briefs that summarize 

the policy options available to officials at different 

levels of government who are interested in encouraging 

equitable and location-efficient growth. This brief 

describes the options available at the local level. The 

paper discusses strategies that promote compact 

development patterns; create a supporting regulatory 

framework; support the acquisition of well-located 

land for affordable homes; use value capture to 

support affordable homes; and preserve and extend the 

availability of affordable homes in location-efficient 

areas.

Center for Housing Policy. Regional Policy 

Options to Support Sustainable and 

Equitable Development. Ideas for Housing 

Policy and Practice, September 2011. http://

www.nhc.org/media/documents/ORAMregional_final.

pdf

This paper is part of a series of briefs that summarize 

the policy options available to officials at different 

levels of government who are interested in encouraging 

equitable and location-efficient growth. This brief 

describes the policy options available at the regional 

level (for example, for councils of government, mayoral 

caucuses, and metropolitan planning organizations) 

and discusses how regional entities can provide 

financial support for local communities to take needed 

actions; democratize access to needed data; plan at 

the regional level for new development; and facilitate 

coordination among jurisdictions or across agencies to 

raise and/or leverage revenue.

Center for Housing Policy, National Housing 

Conference, and What Works Collaborative. 

Challenges and Policy Options for Creating 

and Preserving Affordable Housing near 

Transit and in Other Location-Efficient 

Areas, December 2010. http://www.nhc.

org/media/files/chp_affordablehousing_TOD_

challengesandoptions1.pdf

This report examines specific, actionable, nonstatutory 

changes that HUD and partner agencies could adopt 

to better facilitate and encourage the development and 

preservation of affordable and workforce housing in 
Appendices

Creating Connected Communities 79

location-efficient areas. It focuses on four main areas: 

developing sustainable and inclusive communities, 

ensuring long-term affordability around transit, 

serving very low-income residents around transit, 

and preserving and fostering affordable housing 

opportunities in the broader neighborhood.

Center for Housing Policy and National 

Housing Conference. “HousingPolicy.org 

Toolbox.” http://www.housingpolicy.org/toolbox/

index.html

 This online resource provides an overview of successful 

housing policies and examples of how they have been 

used to achieve key policy goals, including ensuring the 

availability of affordable homes, meeting the housing 

needs of older adults, improving home resistance to 

natural disasters, preventing foreclosures and stabilizing 

neighborhoods, and promoting sustainable and 

equitable development.

Center for Neighborhood Technology. “H+T 

Affordability Index.” http://htaindex.cnt.org/

This online tool provides data about the combined 

cost of housing and transportation at neighborhood 

level, allowing users to visualize maps, charts, 

and statistics for all block groups in nearly 900 

metropolitan and micropolitan areas. The Index shows 

that transportation costs vary between and within 

regions depending on neighborhood characteristics. 

People who live in location-efficient neighborhoods—

compact, mixed use neighborhoods with convenient 

access to jobs, services, transit, and amenities—tend 

to have lower transportation costs. People who live in 

location inefficient places that require automobiles for 

most trips are more likely to have high transportation 

costs. A user guide is located at http://www.htaindex.

org/help.php. Various known uses of the tool are 

outlined at http://www.htaindex.org/applications.php. 

A companion toolkit is located at http://www.htaindex.

org/downloads/toolkit.pdf

Center for Transit-Oriented Development. 

“Mixed-Income Transit-Oriented 

Development Action Guide.” Online tool.

http://www.mitod.org/

Online tool for local jurisdictions working to foster 

mixed-income transit-oriented development (MITOD) 

around planned transit stations. The goal is to help 

practitioners identify the most appropriate and effective 

planning tools to achieve MITOD in their transit 

station area. It gives guidance on the planning process 

for MITOD, describes a range of strategies that can 

be pursued, and identifies related tools to put them to 

work. Strategies and tools are identified to address the 

following goals: prevent displacement via regulation, 

preserve TOD-appropriate affordable housing, increase 

affordable homeownership opportunities, promote 

affordable housing development, finance TOD-targeted 

housing, preserve affordable housing development 

opportunities, reduce the cost of housing production, 

leverage market-rate development, promote transit 

among low-income populations, and site public facility 

investments in station areas.

Center for Transit-Oriented Development. 

Station Area Planning: How To Make Great 

Transit-Oriented Places, February 2008.

http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/

tod202.pdf

This manual is designed to help practitioners involved 

in transit-oriented development (TOD) planning. It 

identifies seven “TOD place types” based on location 

characteristics (primary function, transit modes 

available, land use mix, and density), and provides 

a diagnostic tool to classify a particular station 

into one of these types. The eight types identified 

are regional center, urban center, suburban center, 

transit town center, urban neighborhood, transit 

neighborhood, special use/employment district, and 

district corridor. Strategies for which specific steps and 

recommendations are outlined include maximizing 

transit ridership, generating community involvement, 
Appendices

80 Creating Connected Communities

designing streets for all users, creating opportunities for 

affordable and accessible living, making great public 

spaces, managing parking effectively, capturing the 

value of transit, maximizing neighborhood and station 

connectivity, and implement the plan and monitor 

progress.

Center for Transit-Oriented Development. 

Tools for Mixed-Income TOD, August 2006.

http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/

tools.pdf

This document evaluates tools and strategies in use 

around the country to create mixed-income and 

affordable housing near transit, with best practices 

and examples of how the tools are used in transitoriented development projects. The report offers 

recommendations and a discussion of limitations and 

pitfalls in an effort to increase the successful application 

of the strategies in various political and economic 

contexts. For example, incentive-based zoning is 

recommended for communities where policymakers 

wish to encourage but not require mixed-income 

or mixed-use development; inclusionary housing or 

zoning has the advantage of delivering affordable 

housing without public agency financing or land 

acquisition but is unlikely to produce enough units to 

cover all needs, especially in weaker markets; and joint 

development is a promising tool but can be challenging 

on several fronts due to transit agencies’ need for 

revenues, high costs, and lenders’ perception of risk.

Center for Transportation Studies. Asking 

the Right Questions About Transportation 

and Land Use. University of Minnesota, 

March 2007. http://www.cts.umn.edu/Publications/

ResearchReports/reportdetail.html?id=1272

This is the first research summary for the Access to 

Destinations project, which seeks to understand how 

people use the transit system in the Twin Cities area, 

and how transportation and land use interact in the 

region, with a focus on the concept of accessibility 

rather than mobility. The paper explores different 

measures of accessibility (including an original measure 

called Place Rank), how they relate to home prices, and 

how they evolved over time.

Center for Transportation Studies. 

Measuring What Matters: Access to 

Destinations. University of Minnesota, 

August 2010. http://www.cts.umn.edu/Publications/

ResearchReports/pdfdownload.pl?id=1426

This is the second report in the Access to Destinations 

series. It finds that, while congestion has worsened in 

the Twin Cities area, accessibility by automobile and 

via alternative modes of transportation has improved, 

with most of the improvement explained by land use 

changes. The study also finds that high accessibility 

to jobs has a positive effect on home values, while 

high accessibility to workers has the opposite effect, 

indicating homebuyers will pay a premium to live near 

jobs and away from competing workers.

Center for Transit-Oriented Development 

and Living Cities. Fostering Equitable and 

Sustainable Transit-Oriented Development. 

Briefing Papers for a Convening on TransitOriented Development, February 2009.

http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/about/conplan/pdf/

Fostering_Equitable_and_Sustainable_TOD.pdf

This document is a collection of briefing papers for a 

meeting convened by CTOD, Living Cities, and the 

Boston College Institute for Responsible Investment 

in 2009, with the goal of bringing a diverse set of 

stakeholders together to assess the opportunities 

for promoting and bringing to scale the market for 

equitable and sustainable transit-oriented development 

(TOD) in the current economic and political climate. 

These papers are focused on the critical roles different 

stakeholder groups can play both individually and 

collectively to catalyze opportunities for TOD 

implementation across the country, and to explore new 

models and tools that will respond to the needs of the 

21st century.
Appendices

Creating Connected Communities 81

Comeau, Chris. “Moving Beyond the 

Automobile: Multimodal Transportation 

Planning in Bellingham, Washington.” 

Practicing Planner 7, no. 3 (Fall 2009). http://

www.mrsc.org/artdocmisc/b45beyauto.pdf

This case study examines the evolution of Bellingham, 

WA (pop. 75,750) from auto-centric and roadwaybased transportation planning to inclusive, flexible, and 

integrated multimodal transportation planning and 

concurrency standards. Concurrency is a policy and 

regulatory requirement by which local governments 

must ensure that adequate public facilities and services 

are available at the time the impacts of new land 

development occur, according to locally adopted 

level of service (LOS) standards. The case study also 

discusses the shortfalls of employing conventional 

LOS methods in urban settings and explains how 

Bellingham’s transportation planners created innovative 

new LOS methods specifically designed to help achieve 

the infill and multimodal goals and policies of the city’s 

comprehensive plan.

FRESC and Enterprise. Making Affordable 

Housing At Transit a Reality: Best Practices 

in Transit Agency Joint Development, 2010.

http://www.fresc.org/downloads/TransitDev.pdf

This report analyzes transit agency approaches to 

affordability in joint development in 24 U.S. cities, 

summarizing best practices and outcomes. Joint 

development projects are defined as policies or projects 

involving a transit agency’s sale or lease of land to a 

private developer for the purposes of development 

near or connected to public transit stops or stations. 

Joint development helps facilitate the development of 

affordable housing near transit by solving one of the 

biggest barriers to affordable TOD, namely the ability 

to secure land.

New Jersey Department of Transportation 

and Pennsylvania Department of 

Transportation. Smart Transportation 

Guidebook: Planning and Designing 

Highways and Streets That Support 

Sustainable and Livable Communities, 

March 2008. http://www.state.nj.us/

transportation/community/mobility/pdf/

smarttransportationguidebook2008.pdf

This handbook provides guidelines for improving 

the roadway system in accordance with Smart 

Transportation principles. It is intended to help 

agencies, local governments, developers, and others 

plan and design roadways of all classifications (from 

principal arterial highways owned by the state 

government to local roadways) that fit within the 

existing and planned context of the community 

through which they pass. The handbook presents 

seven place types (rural, suburban neighborhood, 

suburban corridor, suburban center, town/village 

neighborhood, town/village center, and urban core) 

and suggests different types of roadways suitable to 

each. The handbook provides detailed guidance on 

how to design roadways and roadsides, including 

lanes, parking, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, 

intersections, landscaping, and traffic management. 

It designed to be used by communities of all sizes to 

guide implementation of an integrated housing and 

transportation strategy.

PolicyLink, “Equitable Development 

Toolkit.” http://www.policylink.org/site/c.

lkIXLbMNJrE/b.5136575/k.39A1/Equitable_

Development_Toolkit.htm

This online guide presents community leaders 

and advocates with a set of policy options and 

strategies to advance economic and social equity. 

The recommendations are geared toward helping 

decisionmakers achieve diverse, mixed-income 

neighborhoods that provide access to opportunities for 

employment, education, and safe, affordable housing. 

The toolkit includes a section on transit-oriented 

development (TOD) that presents the main concepts 

of TOD, its benefits and key players, and a discussion 

of four main strategies to pursue equity goals within 
Appendices

82 Creating Connected Communities

TOD: community engagement, community-led TOD, 

community benefits around TOD, and commercial 

stabilization in TOD.

Reconnecting America. Somerville Equitable 

Transit-Oriented Development Strategy, 

Report Prepared for the Somerville 

Community Corporation, May 2008. http://

www.somervillema.gov/sites/default/files/CompPLan/

SCC-ReconnectingAmericaEquitableTOD2008.pdf

This document analyzes the challenges and 

opportunities for equitable transit-oriented 

development in Somerville, Massachusetts, a 

community with a diverse population of 77,500 in 

the Boston region. It suggests some common strategies 

for equitable development near transit and how they 

might be applied in the city. This report could serve as 

a model for other small cities that already have robust 

multimodal transportation networks and are trying to 

preserve and expand affordable housing near stations 

while facing growth pressures.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, Office of Policy Development 

and Research. A Model Housing 

Transportation Plan: Coordinating Housing 

and Transportation, June 2012. http://www.

huduser.org/Publications/pdf/model_housing_

transportationplan.pdf

This report describes the process and outcome of 

developing a Housing-Transportation Plan for the 

Overtown station in Miami, Florida. The plan 

considers land availability, affordable housing options, 

existing and proposed development incentives, 

financing options, and ridership and travel trends. 

The plan is unique to the chosen site but can serve 

as a model for jurisdictions with similar traits. It 

explores a number of tools that local jurisdictions can 

use to help encourage the development of affordable 

housing near transit in their own communities, and 

it makes suggestions for implementation. The main 

components of the process were a mixed-income 

transit oriented development (MITOD) opportunity 

analysis; a MITOD strategy analysis; development of 

a “maximum plan” based on the maximum density 

allowed under current zoning regulations; and 

development of a “market plan” based on densities that 

stakeholders felt were realistic and marketable. Both 

plans include street network integration, pedestrianfriendly streets, open spaces, amenities, and appropriate 

parking treatment.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Transit Administration and U.S. Department 

of Housing and Urban Development. Better 

Coordination of Transportation and Housing 

Programs to Promote Affordable Housing 

Near Transit. Report to the Congress, August 

2008. http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/

better_coordination.pdf

A followup to Realizing the Potential: Expanding 

Housing Opportunities Near Transit, this report 

outlines strategies developed by the FTA and HUD at 

the federal level to coordinate between transportation 

and housing programs on mixed-income and affordable 

housing near transit.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Transit Administration. Transit At the Table 

II: A Guide to Participation in Metropolitan 

Transportation Decisionmaking for Transit 

Agencies in Small- and Medium-Sized 

Metropolitan Areas. U.S. Department of 

Transportation, June 2010. http://www.planning.

dot.gov/documents/TransPlanning/TransTableII.pdf

This study assesses the experiences of public 

transportation agencies working with MPOs on 

transportation planning in small and medium-sized 

regions (population 50,000 to 200,000). Through 

various examples, the report makes the case that 

transit agencies’ proactive involvement in many 

regions resulted in direct benefits for the agency and 
Appendices

Creating Connected Communities 83

for the profile and level of transit service in the area. 

It also finds that participation in the MPO process 

can improve regional policy support for transit and 

leverage additional funding opportunities. The report is 

solely focused on transit agencies and does not address 

housing issues.

U.S. Department of Transportation 

and U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development. Federal Barriers 

to Local Housing and Transportation 

Coordination, August 2011. http://

www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/

dothudbarriersreportfinal082511clean-2.pdf

This report investigates the barriers to local 

coordination of housing and transportation resulting 

from HUD and DOT regulations, summarizes ongoing 

efforts within the agencies to address there barriers, 

and presents a list of provisions in HUD and DOT 

regulations where improved coordination would better 

support local strategies.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and 

Suburban Zoning Codes, November 2009.

http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/2009_essential_

fixes.pdf

This report identifies the most common barriers to 

smart growth in codes and ordinances, and suggests 

actions to improve land development regulations and 

implement smart growth approaches. It presents 11 

“essential fixes” to common problems, and includes 

specific implementation steps and examples. The 

document focuses on urban and suburban communities 

but many suggestions can apply to communities of 

any size. For example, the report specifically addresses 

how to implement mixed-use zones, reform the use 

of Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), fix parking 

requirements, modernize street standards, and use 

green infrastructure.
Appendices

84 Creating Connected Communities

Appendix B. Housing + Transportation Affordability Index 

Methodology

The Center for Neighborhood Technology’s Housing 

+ Transportation (H+T®) Affordability Index was 

used to develop the maps and data included in the 

case studies in Chapter III. The H+T Index is an 

innovative tool that measures the true affordability 

of housing by calculating the transportation costs 

associated with a home’s location. Planners, lenders, 

and most consumers traditionally measure housing 

affordability as 30 percent or less of income. The H+T 

Index proposes expanding the definition of housing 

affordability to include transportation costs to better 

reflect the true cost of households’ location choices. 

Based on research in metropolitan areas ranging from 

large cities with extensive transit to small metropolitan 

areas with extremely limited transit options, CNT has 

found 15 percent of income to be an attainable goal 

for transportation affordability. By combining this 15 

percent level with the 30 percent housing affordability 

standard, the H+T Index recommends a new view 

off affordability, one defined as combined housing 

and transportation costs consuming no more than 45 

percent of household income.

For additional information on the tool and 

methodology, see the H+T Index website at http://

htaindex.cnt.org/

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Washington, DC 20410-6000

April 2014