Category: District of Columbia

Making Workforce Housing Work for D.C.

Making Workforce Housing Work for D.C.

Making Workforce Housing Work: Understanding Housing Needs for D.C.’s Changing Workforce

D.C.’s workforce is growing and changing. After years of decline, the city is now a leading jurisdiction in population and job growth.  Increasingly, more people working in D.C. want to live in D.C., though the city still has a net influx of commuters to fill jobs each workday. This growth dynamic offers the District new opportunities, but also continued housing affordability challenges that must be addressed strategically to make the lives of working households better, and foster a healthy economy.  D.C. can and should affordably house more of its workforce.  To accomplish this, the District must deploy two broad strategies:

  • Make the housing market work better by changing land use policies to provide the housing supply necessary to keep pace with demand from working households who could pay for housing if it were more available and less costly.
  • Use subsidies and a full set of public policy tools to bridge the remaining gap where housing costs are too high and wages too low. The District should dramatically increase funding for the Local Rent Supplement Program and Housing Production Trust Fund. It should also leverage Inclusionary Zoning, Planned Unit Developments and other zoning tools to produce more housing that is affordable. These investments and policy tools must make homes affordable for workers who are filling common occupations but face severe housing cost burdens. This essential part of the workforce earns half or less of the region’s median household income.

This paper focuses on the latter issue: specifically, the need to target public resources and policies to addressing the needs of the large share of the workforce that earns 50 percent or less of area median income. These workers represent 8 of the 20 most common occupations in the District of Columbia, and 5 of those 8 occupations pay wages that amount to 30 percent or less of area median income.

View full report at: Making Workforce Housing Work

Jan. 31, 2019 Homeowner ADU Workshop

We had a fabulous turnout of over 100 people at our D.C. ADU Homeowner Workshop on Jan. 31, 2019, at District Architecture Center!

If you are able, please fill out this survey about the workshop so that we can make sure our future events meet your needs; we want to make sure we’re helping you access the correct and necessary resources to build an ADU.

And, if you haven’t already, join the D.C. ADU online forum.

Presentation materials from the workshop are posted in the public folder of the ADU forum, including:

Stories about ADUs in D.C. have recently on UrbanTurf (“Adaptive reuse to granny pod: A look at two ADUs in D.C.”) and Greater Greater Washington (“Accessory apartments make money and increase the housing supply. Here’s how to build one” and “10 things to look for if you’re considering creating an accessory apartment,” both by Ileana Schinder).

Many thanks to our partners United Planning Organization and in the D.C. ADU workgroup, and our generous sponsors—Wall to Wall Construction, BB&T Home Mortgage, and AIA|DC—for their support of our workshop. CSG is a donor-supported organization; if you like our work, please consider making a contribution to us today.

And, once again: Please, take our survey!

Image via buildinganadu.com

Bus lanes coming to 16th Street, but it could cost you some parking

More parking restrictions could be coming to 16th Street NW as part of the ongoing changes to prepare the corridor for rush-hour transit lanes, expected by 2020.

The D.C. Department of Transportation says it is moving to lengthen 22 bus zones along 16th Street to better accommodate articulated buses. In the process, it would remove up to 66 parking spaces.

City planners are studying additional impacts on parking that could result from adding dedicated transit lanes to one of the city’s busiest commuter corridors. Parking now allowed in the off-peak direction during rush hour could be removed to allow for travel in all traffic lanes during the morning and evening commutes.

DDOT also is evaluating a proposal to extend rush-hour parking restrictions along the corridor to ease bus travel. Next week, however, the agency plans to bring back regular rush hours to this and other corridors where the agency extended parking restrictions by 30 minutes to ease congestion during SafeTrack. Metro’s yearlong maintenance program ends Sunday, and parking prohibitions will return to normal: 7 to 9:30 a.m. and 4 to 6:30 p.m.

The ongoing changes could reduce parking availability on 16th Street, but transit advocates say they are necessary to prioritize bus use in the corridor that carries as many as 20,000 commuters on a typical weekday. Some say it is a luxury to have any parking available on one of the city’s busiest thoroughfares.

The bus lane plan has been embraced by bus riders and city residents, who say dedicated lanes could help solve chronic problems on the S-Line, including crowding, bunching and delays.

The improvements would benefit thousands of riders who are often stuck behind traffic traveling at speeds of less than 10 miles per hour. The S-Line transports more people than cars during rush hour, making the corridor an ideal testing ground for the type of improved bus service that transit advocates and riders say would make Metrobus more efficient and attractive to commuters.

“People love their 16th street bus service and they love riding,” said Cheryl Cort, an advocate for bus lanes with the Coalition for Smarter Growth. Without bus lanes, she said, the problems will continue or worsen. Sometimes, buses are so crowded, she said, that four buses pass her before she can board one.

Metro has invested in the line, adding trips and restructuring service to provide extra buses along the southern portion. But as service was added, ridership grew.

DDOT began design work on the lanes last year, along with other enhancements to the road infrastructure, such as adjusting the timing of traffic lights and more frequent buses. Parking restrictions are next in the process, which also calls for the elimination of bus stops and more upgrades to the bus fleet. Plans also call for an off-board payment system and all-door entry on S-Line buses to reduce dwelling times at bus stops.

The bus lanes would run peak-direction during rush hour, from Arkansas Avenue in the upper Northwest area to H Street in downtown.

Earlier plans to extend the center reversible lane from Arkansas Avenue to K Street by installing a fifth lane south of U Street may not be possible because parts of the corridor are 2 to 3 feet short of the 50 feet needed to have five, 10-foot traffic lanes, officials say.

Still, the city said it is moving forward with rush-hour transit lanes throughout the length of the corridor. DDOT will present alternatives for how to do that in the segment that has only four lanes at a meeting next month.

As the project advances, the most controversial part has been the potential elimination of eight bus stops: southbound stops at Newton, Lamont and V streets; and northbound at L, Q, V, Lamont and Newton streets.

Residents and community leaders said at a meeting last week that taking away stops would impact riders, many of them elderly and with young children, who already walk four or five blocks to get to their bus stops.

Kishan Putta, a community activist who has been pushing for the transit lane for the past four years, said the consolidation of bus stops could alienate riders and the time savings is not worth it. Instead, he said, DDOT should consider whether it makes sense to have some buses uses different stops.

As part of the ongoing changes in the corridor, Metro will add more rush-hour trips on the S9 buses starting Sunday. In recent months, the limited-stop route tested transit signal priority, a system that allows the bus extra green time at the light so it can stay on schedule.

City officials say they are still evaluating the program’s success, and whether significant time savings are accomplished, before implementing on the S1, S2 and S4.

With regards to parking, DDOT spokesman Terry Owens said the city plans to begin work with Advisory Neighborhood Commissions on the parking spaces that will be removed to make bus zones longer. He said the minimum length of a bus zone on an articulated bus route is 110 feet. Twenty-two bus zones don’t meet that guideline and will be lengthened by 40 to 60 feet, which means two to three parking spaces at some locations.

DDOT’s project timeline puts bus lane in the corridor by 2020. Under DDOT’s proposal, buses would have a southbound dedicated lane from 7 to 10 a.m. and a northbound one from 4 to 7:30 p.m.

The lane could save nearly six minutes of travel time during the morning commute for some southbound buses and the same for the northbound traffic in the evening, but general traffic would see modest increases in travel time, according to a DDOT study.

Click here to read the original story.

Statement of support for inclusionary zoning by DC Campaign for Inclusionary Zoning

This statement is submitted on behalf of the Campaign for Inclusionary Zoning regarding Zoning Case 04-33G. We want to thank the Commission for its interest in this case. The District is experiencing an affordable housing crisis of historic significance. As DC’s economy and population grows, housing prices rise, and low-income DC residents with stagnant wages are left struggling to pay for housing. In this environment, the District must take action to sharpen each tool in the city’s affordable housing toolbox, especially inclusionary zoning, the only tool that by design creates affordable homes in high-cost neighborhoods.

Campaign to Strengthen DC’s Inclusionary Zoning Affordable Housing Program Briefing

Event Materials:

Supporting Materials:

Event Description:
October 22, 2015 | held at DC Fiscal Policy Institute (DCFPI)

Speakers:

David Bowers, Enterprise Community Partners

Claire Zippel, DC Fiscal Policy Institute

Cheryl Cort, Coalition for Smarter Growth

DC Affordable Housing Alliance and the Campaign for Inclusionary Zoning convened a briefing for affordable housing and social justice advocates to learn how the city’s newer affordable housing programs, Inclusionary Zoning, can better serve the people it was intended to help.

The briefing covered how DC’s Inclusionary Zoning regulations are working, and how they can be improved to offer more affordable housing for lower income DC residents. The advocates briefing was in preparation for the January 28, 2016 public hearing by the DC Zoning Commission to consider changes to the IZ regulations to better serve low income people.

Testimony on partial offsite Inclusionary Zoning and affordable housing benefit in the Highline development project

We are enthusiastic about this project because it takes full advantage of the site’s proximity to Metro and bus lines, employment, services and burgeoning new commercial districts. I will spend the rest of my time discussing our qualified support for the proposed partial off-site compliance for Inclusionary Zoning regulations (IZ), and an affordable housing proffer.

City should expand Inclusionary Zoning

D.C.’s transformation from a city struggling and losing population in the 1990s to today’s increasingly popular and booming district has brought many benefits. But this transformation has created a growing affordable housing crisis. Many longtime residents and would-be new transplants without large bank accounts feel that they don’t have a place. Local leaders from Mayor Muriel Bowser on down rightly perceive this as a problem that must be addressed.

Unfortunately, there is no one magic bullet to keep our city inclusive and make sure longtime residents can enjoy the same amenities as wealthier new comers. Rather, we need to look at an array of policy solutions as we would a toolbox where a number of different tools are needed to effectively tackle any job. In keeping with this metaphor, we also need to remain ready to add to that toolbox and sharpen or upgrade existing tools.

One tool ready to be sharpened is Inclusionary Zoning, or IZ.

Adopted in 2006, IZ requires builders of most residential developments larger than nine units to set aside 8 to 10 percent of the units as permanently affordable to middle-class and lower-income house- holds. Typically these units are reserved for families making between 50 and 80 percent of the area median income. For a household of two, this equals $44,000 to $70,000 a year. IZ pays for lower priced homes in market rate developments by allowing the developer to build more units than would otherwise be allowed under zoning rules. It requires no direct subsidies. Thus we are able to use our city’s sustained building boom to create additional affordable units now and bank them for the future.

Critics say the program is too slow to put units on the market. To date, just over 100 units, mostly rent- als, have become available. As of late April, 61 of 105 available IZ rental units had been leased, with another 11 sold or under contract out of 13 for sale. Additionally, the beginning of the program has suffered from many administrative kinks.

Both of those initial problems are being addressed. IZ’s slow start will soon be a thing of the past, with an estimated 1,000-plus units currently in the pipeline. Many of the administrative problems are being resolved, and the city now has a fully staffed team to manage the program. The IZ program is operational and doing what it was designed to do. The Urban Institute recently pronounced D.C.’s pro- gram sound and of great potential.

IZ is about to deliver 19 affordable units in Upper Northwest at 5333 Connecticut Ave., and is now leasing 17 affordable homes at the Drake at 17th and O streets in Dupont Circle. How else would such moderately priced housing opportunities ever be possible there?

But IZ can and should do more. That’s why a coalition of housing, religious, labor and smart growth groups is urging the Zoning Commission and mayor to act. The D.C. Council just passed a resolution asking the same. We should strengthen IZ to increase the number of low-income households that qualify for the program and the number of IZ units produced.

This means bringing down the top end of the income range from 80 percent of area median income (AMI) to 70 percent AMI or lower, and increasing the number of units gained at the 50 percent AMI level (affordable for a two-person house- hold earning just under $44,000 annually). We should also ask for at least 10 to 12 percent of homes in a residential building to be affordable, and provide additional bonus density and zoning flexibility to ensure developments recover the added cost of the affordable units.

Fixing any problem as complicated as D.C.’s affordable housing crisis requires a lot of tools. IZ is one way we can make up ground in our affordable housing crisis — and one that doesn’t require millions of dollars out of D.C.’s budget. It helps working-class residents have more housing options as prices continue to rise out of reach. Other programs better address the needs of those at the bottom of the economic ladder.

Along with strengthening IZ, these other efforts — part of the needed continuum of help require our deepened investment and support, too. The unprecedented level of funding for affordable housing in the budget proposed by Mayor Bowser and given initial approval by the D.C. Council is a great start to the Bowser administration and council session.

We hope that Mayor Bowser and the Zoning Commission will take the opportunity to act now while our city continues to attract more people and build new housing at a rapid pace.

Cheryl Cort is policy director at the Coalition for Smarter Growth and a leader of the DC Campaign for Inclusionary Zoning.

Read the original article here.

RELEASE: Housing advocates commend DC Council resolution urging action to expand affordable housing production through Inclusionary Zoning

Today, housing advocates applauded nine DC Councilmembers for introducing a resolution encouraging the DC Zoning Commission and Mayor Bowser to strengthen a promising market-based affordable housing program. At-Large Councilmember Elissa Silverman, along with eight of her colleagues, introduced the resolution. The measure encourages the Zoning Commission and Mayor Bowser to act to strengthen the city’s Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) program, which sets aside a certain number of permanently-affordable units in most new residential construction.

An affordable housing crisis with no end in sight

nclusionary Zoning battled a lot of developments that were grandfathered in before the law went into effect, said Cheryl Cort, policy director for the Coalition for Smarter Growth. And much of the program’s focus has been on rentals, as it will remain until the building market falls under these new regulations. So far, they have 48 units rented under Inclusionary Zoning rules — or a dismal eight rentals a year.

Transit advocate backs bus-only lane as traffic solution for D.C.’s busy 16th Street route

A prominent advocacy group for smart growth and transit challenges the views that a letter-writer and I expressed about the future of bus service on one of the District’s busiest commuter routes.

Sixteenth Street buses are squeezing out all the capacity they can under current conditions. There’s no more room to add additional capacity for cars to the road without harming neighborhoods adjacent to 16th Street NW (nor is driving an option for many residents along 16th Street anyway).

Yet our region continues to grow, and more people need to commute to downtown D.C. from D.C. and Silver Spring neighborhoods all along the corridor. What are we going to do to address that?

The 16th Street bus lanes proposal, in which the current reversible rush-hour lane from Arkansas Avenue NW to downtown would be transformed into a dedicated bus lane, is our best option. With the rush-hour bus lane, we would increase our capacity to move the greatest number of people through this important corridor and with the least disruption to commuters using different transportation modes.

A 2013 feasibility study for the District Department of Transportation showed that creating a bus lane in that stretch of 16th Street would still leave two lanes for cars and only slightly increase delays. Meanwhile, buses, which move half of rush-hour travelers on 16th Street, would move 30 percent faster with a dedicated lane and, most important, would increase capacity for [moving people through the corridor] by 10 percent.

All of this can be done without sacrificing any parking spaces or narrowing 16th Street to one lane for cars in the peak direction south of U Street NW, as the letter-writer in your column suggests.

The same 50-foot right-of-way along this corridor has sufficient room south of U Street to be restriped for three travel lanes in the peak direction during rush hour, and to allow the non-peak direction to remain as it is — with one parking lane and one travel lane. Traffic volume is not as high south of U Street as it is to the north, where street parking isn’t allowed during rush hour in either direction.

As to your other points about bringing signal prioritization to the corridor and increasing the number of Metro supervisors along 16th Street to improve the efficiency of bus spacing, we agree, but it’s not enough.

Buses get stuck in traffic and are thrown off their schedules for two big reasons: They are stopped at red lights, and they are held back from moving through intersections because there are a bunch of cars in front of them.

Dedicated bus lanes free up buses from being stuck behind a line of cars trying to get through an intersection, and signal priority gets the bus through the intersection. Together, bus lanes and signal priority do more than the benefits they offer individually to get buses moving.

When we can do this with a marginal effect on traffic congestion, but a real increase in overall capacity, it’s a win for everyone.

What should be our next move? Do the detailed evaluations, approvals and plans to assess and implement a bus lane. DDOT should also expedite implementation of transit-signal priority, which is scheduled to be operating in the next two years.

The current status of the bottled-up transit service on 16th Street leaves more than half of the corridor’s commuters with a substandard option that is not only unacceptable, but also fixable. Why would we be so biased against effective solutions to make a corridor work for a majority of its travelers?

Cheryl Cort, policy director, Coalition for Smarter Growth

DG: A woman who lived at 16th and U streets in the late 1980s told me the Metrobuses were referred to as the “Banana Bus Lines,” because they always arrived in bunches. Many of today’s riders who try to board in the Mount Pleasant/Columbia Heights neighborhoods and farther south say that’s the most predictable part of the rush-hour bus service.

But to really succeed, a transit service needs the schedules to be predictable, not the bus bunching and crowding.

Metro and the District Department of Transportation consider 16th Street part of a regional bus priority corridor network, but DDOT has not yet presented an official proposal for bus-only lanes on 16th Street.

Maryland-to-D.C. commuters and D.C. residents along the corridor need to see such a proposal to make a proper evaluation. DDOT’s abortive experience with reconfiguring Wisconsin Avenue NW highlights some of the difficulties in translating what looks good on a map into what works for commuters in rush-hour traffic.

Before bus lanes arrive on 16th Street, drivers and bus riders alike need to know the District will be committed to enforcing new rules on lane use, parking and turning.

Bus-only lanes in an urban core are a block-by-block experience in engineering and transportation politics. If 16th Street becomes an initial experience, it needs to be a good one. Otherwise it could poison the environment for other transit improvements.

Read the original article here.