Date post: | 03-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | julian-snow |
View: | 58 times |
Download: | 3 times |
1
JOBS HOUSING FIT IN THE BAY AREAChris Benner, University of California Davis
2
From jobs-housing balance to fit
First systematic studies in the late 1980s Found that commute distance was
affected by a multitude of factors Low-income workers given special
consideration Appropriate “fit” between jobs and
housing often discussed but never explicitly studied
3
Issues and opportunities
Why should we care? VMT, GHG, and equity
Current conditions versus projections
Appropriate geography of analysis
Prototype jobs-housing fit analysis(Sacramento Area Council of
Governments)
4
Data
Jobs Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/ Any geography possible Low-wage ≤ $1250/month
Affordable rental units American Community Survey Census Summary File 1 Rent ≤ $750/month Margins of error (places vs. tracts)
5
Method
Jurisdiction level Linked to political process and decisions
regarding affordable housing provision Tract/buffer level
More closely linked to VMT Avoids problems with arbitrary boundaries
6
mappingregionalchange.ucdavis.edu
Red = Severe shortage of affordable rental units
Blue = Excess of affordable rental units in relation to available low-wage jobs
7
8
Multiple Silicon Valley Cities with JHFit > 5
Multiple Eastern Suburbs with
JHFit > 10
9
10
Tract/buffer level results
11
Buffer definition
• Sidestep problems with arbitrary jurisdictional boundaries
• Test different sizes using travel data
• Highlights small geographies with poor fit
Example buffer definition
12
13
14
15
Commute performanceby Alex Karner
16
Bay Area VMT
Data from activity-based microsimulation of daily travel patterns in 2010
Allows analysis of low-wage VMT attracted to each zone
Bay Area VMT
Census Tract 15
Low-wage worker 115 mile one-way commute
Low-wage worker 212 mile one-way commute
Low-wage worker 322 mile one-way commute
Total work VMT attracted = 49Total workers = 3
Attracted work VMT per worker= 49/3 = 16.3
18
Bay Area VMT
JH fit category
0 – 2.2 2.2 – 4 > 4
VMT attracted
7.10 7.61 10.4
JH fit category
Coefficient p-value
2.2 – 4 0.51 0.005
> 4 3.31 < 0.001
N = 1592, R2 = 0.24
Model results
Mean VMT attracted by JH fit category
19
Bay Area VMT
20
Conclusions
New method to calculate and track changes in jobs-housing fit over time using public data
Highlights opportunities for affordable housing provision and economic development
Clear implications for low-income commute performance
Contact
CollaboratorsBidita TithiAlex KarnerJonathan LondonCatherine Garoupa-White
AdvocatesFelicity GasserSam Tepperman-GelfantLisa Hershey
Acknowledgements
Chris [email protected]://regionalchange.ucdavis.edu http://mappingregionalchange.ucdavis.edu