How these three words — major transit stop — are interpreted may be a key to fulfilling California’s future housing needs.
Researchers at the UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies are examining how the various definitions of the term can influence housing development.
Jacob Wasserman, Research Program Manager at the Institute of Transportation Studies Jacob Wasserman, recently told television station KCRW that he defines a “major transit stop” as “a train stop, a ferry terminal, a bus rapid transit station, or where two bus routes that come every 20 minutes or better intersect.”
The state has it own definition under California Public Resources Code §21064.3, but Wasserman noted that cities and regional planning agencies often interpret the term differently.
According to the UCLA study, these inconsistencies can have significant implications for where housing is built.
Encourage Development Near Transit
For example, policies such as Senate Bill 79, signed into law by Gavin Newsom, aim to encourage development near transit. SB 79, the “Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act,” accelerates multifamily housing construction near major transit hubs and it overrides local zoning to allow 4–9 story developments within a half mile of high-frequency transit, requiring 7–13% affordable units.
The UCLA study, however, suggests that such legislation may also create unintended incentives for some cities to limit transit expansion in order to avoid triggering additional housing requirements.
The state’s definition focuses on high-frequency or high-capacity transit, not ordinary bus stops and its state’s definition usually serves as the anchor point for transit-oriented development policies.
Many of California’s laws then apply special rules within a half mile of a major transit stop, such as:
- Reduced or eliminated parking minimums
- Housing density bonuses or streamlined approvals
- Transit-priority project incentives.
For example, a location would qualify if it is a subway or light-rail station, or a bus intersection where two frequent routes meet running every 10–20 minutes during rush hour.
Moving forward, Wasserman said that exploring alternative methods to determine where housing should be established, such as locations that do not rely as much on transit.
Interpretations Make Big Difference
Planners, developers, and elected officials construe the sparse definition in state law in many ways — though genuine interpretive disagreement because of modeling and data constraints, and/or to serve political goals of encouraging or stymying development.
Differences in interpreting the definition of “major transit stop” collectively make a big difference in what areas are covered by state zoning incentives.
For example, researchers note that a maximal approach to defining “major transit stop” grows the eligible area by over three times more than a minimal approach.
The area within half a mile of a major transit stop generally has increased over time, but areas with low vehicle travel are doing more to drive affordable housing eligibility than areas with quality transit.
And, in some cases, tying transit service to land use regulations has created an incentive to cut transit service to avoid state housing mandates, researchers noted.
