<< backEnergy, Transportation and Affordable HousingNearly 40 percent of the nation's energy is consumed by the buildings in which families live and the transportation they use to get to work and around town.
[
1] The energy-efficiency of these homes, as well as their proximity to jobs, retail and public transportation – which affect the number of
vehicle miles traveled each day – are thus critical environmental issues that merit public attention. Land use policies that ensure that housing is well-located near job centers and public transit hubs along with energy-efficient construction practices can help reduce overall energy use and improve environmental outcomes.
At the same time, it is important to consider the implications of these policies on housing affordability. While some energy-efficient construction techniques carry little or no cost, others are more costly and may drive up the price of housing. Similarly, land use policies that increase density around transit stops but do not focus on making some of those units affordable to moderate-income families may succeed in improving livability only for higher-income families.
Well-coordinated housing, energy and transportation policies can help working families to reduce their combined housing, energy and transportation cost burdens, freeing up funds for food, health care, higher education, and other important objectives. Such policies also can help to lower overall energy usage by reducing the number o
f vehicle miles traveled. By reducing the incentives for moderate-income families to seek lower-cost housing in leapfrog developments at the periphery of the metropolitan area, these policies help to contain sprawl, further improving livability and environmental outcomes.
Click on the following links to visit the corresponding sections:
The Combined Burden of Housing, Transportation, and Utility CostsHousing affordability is typically measured by comparing a family’s income to its costs for housing and utilities. This gets at two of the three major costs of place. The third is transportation, which may be the largest of the three costs for working families and is closely related to housing costs. According to a study of 28 metropolitan areas by the Center for Housing Policy, housing, transportation and utility costs together account for some 57 percent of a working household’s income.
[
2] [
3]
Households that spend less on housing often trade-off those savings by spending more on transportation, and vice-versa. For example, families that cannot afford to live near their place of work may end up buying or renting a home at a considerable distance that is more affordable, but then forfeiting much of their savings through the higher transportation costs associated with long commutes. Reducing the combined burden of housing, transportation, and utility costs is thus key to ensuring true housing affordability. Such policies also often benefit the environment by reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled — the number of miles that families need to travel each day – leading to lower energy usage and improved air quality.
back to topImproving the Coordination of Housing and Transportation PolicyComprehensive land-use planning can link housing and transportation policies together in a way that benefits the environment, individual families, and the community at large. As part of this process,
zoning laws can be revised to promote
mixed-use development as a way to integrate a number of activities within a single area to reduce travel distances. For example, mixed-use zoning can enable commercial and retail buildings to be located in close proximity to homes.
Transit-oriented development policies, which also may be implemented through zoning changes, encourage development near public transit hubs to maximize the number of people who can utilize public transportation to meet their core transit needs. A study of transit-oriented development in California found that such developments can reduce rates of greenhouse gas emissions by 2.5 to 3.7 tons annually per household,
[
4] highlighting the environmental benefits of this type of planning practice.
Transit-oriented development and mixed-use zoning designations typically require compact development, a form of development in which housing is built relatively densely to ensure there are enough residential units nearby to support the transit or retail. The construction of affordable homes on underutilized or vacant properties near urban centers, also known as infill development, can help to achieve this goal while taking advantage of existing infrastructure on the property. Well-designed, compact development is cost-effective because it can reduce the total cost of producing a unit by spreading out land costs over a greater number of units. Compact residential development can also facilitate economic development by expanding opportunities for retail sales in the neighborhood.
Transit-oriented development, mixed-use neighborhoods and other forms of compact development are increasingly in demand by families that seek walkable neighborhoods well-located near public transit. Because of this popularity, however, such development designations can drive up land prices near transit stops or in mixed-use neighborhoods, reducing the supply of affordable homes precisely where they are needed most. To preserve affordable housing near public transit and in desirable mixed-use neighborhoods, and to ensure that some of the newly built housing is affordable, it is important for communities to enact complementary housing affordability policies.
| 
Country Lane, Lakeville MN -- photo courtesy of LHB, Inc.
|
One approach is for jurisdictions to establish
inclusionary zoning requirements or incentives to ensure that a percentage of newly built residential units are affordable in the targeted areas. For example, local governments can provide
density bonuses to developers who build near transit hubs, if they include affordable homes as part of that development. Such a policy promotes both compact development and affordable housing. Other policies, such as allowing
accessory dwelling units, can create new housing units that may be more affordable, boosting the number of working families able to take advantage of transit and other nearby amenities. Finally, shared equity policies that preserve homeownership or rental affordability over the long-term can be critical for ensuring that affordable housing opportunities remain in these desirable and well-located neighborhoods.
back to topEnergy-Efficient Construction and RehabilitationThe location of housing is not the only factor that determines household energy expenditures. Over half of all carbon dioxide emissions released from buildings in the United States annually (38 percent) comes from the residential building sector.
[
5] Many government officials, architects and developers are turning towards environmentally-friendly design and construction of buildings, often termed "
green building", as concern about the environment and climate change grows. Green building techniques are energy and resource efficient, using less water and electricity than conventional buildings. Survey findings by McGraw-Hill and the National Association of Home Builder indicate that in 2007, construction of green homes increased by 30 percent over 2006 alone.
[
6]
There are many different energy-efficiency standards that have varying implications for the costs of housing. Some policies add only modestly to new construction or rehabilitation costs, while others may add more. Some policies may generate utility savings over the life-cycle of the home, making them cheaper to operate over a thirty-year period, but nevertheless more costly at the outset. Green projects also may require additional expertise and oversight to meet environmental goals, involving more staff time in the project budget. Overall, expenses of green building may be offset by proximity to public transit, lower utility bills, operating costs, or other cost savings – but sometimes these savings are not immediate or tangible to families struggling to afford their housing costs.
To mitigate the extra up-front costs associated with going green, many local and state governments have developed policies to make green building practices more accessible for low to moderate income families. According to Enterprise Community Partners, between 2005 to 2007, 36 state housing agencies added "significant" new green policies to their Low Income Housing Tax Credit programs, ensuring that newly developed affordable rental housing is also energy efficient. At the local level, many mayors are including policies to develop green affordable homes as part of their larger city-wide sustainability strategies. Additionally, a number of non-profit entities and foundations are teaming up to make affordable, green homes more accessible and available. As more programs are developed to make green building practices more common, the hope and expectation is that prices for green technology will be reduced, and thus more affordable and widely adopted.
In addition to incorporating green technologies in new construction, there are many federal grants and programs to help low income households improve the energy-efficiency of existing housing units. Navigating the resources available for weatherization assistance or rehab programs, however, can be a complicated process since there is no universal application system or set of requirements that crosses different government funded programs. It is important for agencies to coordinate with each other to streamline the process to ensure the best use of their resources and maximize the number of households that are able to access the resources they need.
Recognizing these challenges, the Weatherization, Rehab and Asset Preservation (WRAP) Partnership, coordinated by the Energy Programs Consortium with support from the Ford Foundation, has launched a pilot program to link affordable housing with weatherization programs as part of a “one-stop shop” for services in selected communities.
By consolidating different home repair services under one roof, it simplifies the administrative process and makes it easier for individuals to apply for grants and loans. The WRAP program is especially beneficial to low-income homeowners who may not have the resources to invest in home maintenance, improvements, and other repairs, which may reduce the value of their home because of deterioration over time. Click here to learn more about the WRAP partnership.
| Solutions in Action
|
North Carolina’s SystemVision program, a partnership between the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency (NCHFA) and a non-profit, Advanced Energy, provides incentives and technical assistance to non-profit housing developers for constructing Energy Star-compliant homes affordable to households earning less than 80 percent of the area median income. Through SystemVision, participating non-profit developers and local governments are eligible to receive up to $4,000 for each home developed.
In addition to reducing development costs, SystemVision provides homeowners a two-year backed guarantee that their monthly heating and cooling utility bills will not exceed a set cost (typically $30/month). If the cost exceeds the set amount, Advanced Energy will reimburse the homeowner for the remainder of the bill. The guarantee is an important part of the program, ensuring he energy cost savings are transferred to the homeowner. Homes built to meet SystemVision standards prove that affordability does not compromise building quality.
Since 2001, over 1,450 affordable homes have been built throughout the state of North Carolina as part of the SystemVision program. In 2005, NCHFA extended the SystemVision concept to multi-family development.
Click here for more information on SystemVision. |
Multiple standards and certifications programs are available to guide policymakers on green building. The Green Communities Initiative, established by Enterprise Community Partners, is one model that emphasizes affordable green rental and for-sale homes. LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) standards, developed by the U.S. Green Building Council, also provides guidelines and certification for developing green buildings, as does the government’s Energy Star program.
Local and state governments may wish to consider replicating the WRAP partnership model or developing their own approach to streamlining and expanding funds for energy-efficient rehab. Among other strategies to consider are to provide grants or low-interest or silent-second mortgages to help families and rental property owners afford the costs of energy-efficient improvements.
Click here to view resources on green affordable housing.
back to top
[
1] Estimate based on
Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 26. 2007. Prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy. Tables 2.1 & 2.5.
[
2] A working family in this study is defined as a household earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually.
[
3]
A Heavy Load: The Combined Housing and Transportation Burdens of Working Families. [PDF] 2006. By Barbara Lipman. Washington, DC: Center for Housing Policy.
[
4]
Statewide Transit-Oriented Development Study: Factors for Success in California. 2002. Businesses, Transportation and Housing Agency, California Department of Transportation.
[
5]
Benefits of Going Green. Columbia, MD: Enterprise Community Partners- Green Communities Initiative.
[
6]
The New Environment for Housing. 2007. By Jill Brooke.
American Prospect.
