Introduction and summary
The housing affordability and climate crises are deeply interconnected challenges. An equitable U.S. housing future must enable millions of Americans to live in homes that don’t exhaust a majority of their incomes, force them to breathe polluted air, or isolate them from economic opportunities and essential services. Incentivizing the construction of housing that is affordable, climate resilient, and accessible by public transportation is the foundation for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and helping families achieve economic success. Smart federal policy that addresses both housing and climate change is necessary to achieve a sustainable, healthy, and inclusive economy that works for everyone, not just the wealthy few.
Recent legislation such as the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act are delivering billions of dollars in grants, loans, and tax credits for local communities to build an equitable, 100 percent clean future. Yet ensuring this historic federal investment is funneled into projects that will advance both social equity and decarbonization goals is a challenge. This report recommends five policy reforms to existing federal programs to ensure that they deliver the maximum benefit. These reforms alone will not solve the housing or climate crises, but they are an important step in ensuring existing programs are efficiently supporting the expansion of sustainable and affordable housing near high-quality public transportation.
The climate and infrastructure legislation passed during the Biden-Harris administration represents a historic investment in America’s economic success and a down payment on keeping America’s global climate promises. The reforms detailed in this report can help ensure that existing programs maximize benefits by bringing together government, nonprofit, and private-sector firms that are too often siloed.
This report urges Congress to enact recommendations 1–3 as part of an omnibus package of climate and housing reforms, while federal agencies should use their discretionary authority when developing notices of funding availability to implement recommendations 4 and 5:
- Reform the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program to extend the affordability compliance period to 20 years and require states to prioritize affordable, all-electric housing units located within a half-mile of high-quality public transit.
- Reform Federal Transit Administration (FTA) formula grants to allow recipients to use their annual allocation to buy and anticipate future affordable housing development.
- Allow local governments to use either their Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) or Community Project Funding (CPF) grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to cover the cost of reforming land use and zoning regulations to permit more housing development.
- Prioritize discretionary FTA Capital Investment Grants for projects that are all-electric and have the greatest density zoned around transit stops.
- Reward applicants for discretionary grant programs at the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and HUD that have upzoned—increased the amount of development allowed in a specific area—around high-quality transit lines, reduced parking minimums, or mandated all-electric residential and commercial construction.
What is “affordable” housing?
HUD designates housing as affordable if a resident pays no more than 30 percent of their gross income on rent, including utilities;1 those who pay more than 30 percent are considered “cost burdened.”2 In the United States, more than 22 million households are paying more than 30 percent of their income on rent, and nearly 1 in 6 families are “severely cost burdened,” meaning they are living in homes that cost more than 50 percent of their income.3
When housing is affordable, households should have enough income left over after rent or mortgage payments to afford basic necessities, which means the pace of national wages should be in line with rent and home ownership costs.4 Making housing affordable for millions of cost-burdened Americans requires deep and consistent investment in federal rental assistance programs, emergency assistance for renters in the midst of financial hardship, health care and housing vouchers to low-income families, and support for people experiencing homelessness.5 Effective affordable housing—which includes but is not limited to increased wages commensurate with the cost of living and housing that is located in well-connected, transit- and amenity-rich areas—advances health equity and reduces cost burdens and racial disparities in housing access.6
What is “sustainable” housing?
The U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is the world’s most widely used rating system for the sustainability of developments, including single-family homes, neighborhoods, and even entire cities.7 LEED considers a building’s location, materials, operations and maintenance, decarbonization measures, energy system efficiency, access and incentives for transit, preservation of land and existing ecosystems, and indoor environmental standards—crucial metrics that determine how housing affects residents’ quality of life.8 To help the buildings sector reach national climate goals, the U.S. Department of Energy has set out new criteria for how the nation defines zero-emissions buildings: They must be highly energy-efficient, powered solely by clean energy, and have no greenhouse gas emissions from direct energy use.9
HUD defines sustainable communities as urban, suburban, and rural areas that integrate housing, transportation, land use, economic and workforce development, and infrastructure investments that enable jurisdictions to address housing challenges—including energy use, climate change, environmental and public health, social equity, and economic revitalization.10 The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, meanwhile, defines building electrification as the replacement of fossil-fueled equipment—such as gas furnaces or cooktops—with electric equivalents and finds that any building can become all-electric.11
This report takes many of these definitions’ characteristics into account in its recommendations and case studies.
What is “transit-accessible” housing?
Although there is no universally accepted definition of accessible transit, public transit providers have largely coalesced around the half-mile as the standard distance for defining a reasonable transit catchment area, or the area in which an individual transit stop draws nontransferring riders.12 This corresponds with approximately a 10-minute walk—for an able-bodied person—to or from a transit stop. While distance is certainly an important factor, it is not the only one. The built environment and its ability to facilitate access to transit is also an important factor. This report considers accessible transit to be that which is within a half-mile radius; complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act; is surrounded by a built environment that safely facilitates biking and walking, not just driving; and lacks major obstacles such as highway crossings.
While not unique to transit planning, many of the above features can be encouraged by taking a “smart growth” approach to development. “Smart growth” adheres to a set of 10 principles created by the International City/County Management Association, the EPA, and the Smart Growth Network to facilitate developing more economically prosperous, socially equitable, and environmentally sustainable communities:13
- Encourage mixed land uses.
- Take advantage of compact building design.
- Create a range of housing opportunities and choices.
- Create walkable neighborhoods.
- Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place.
- Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas.
- Strengthen and direct development toward existing communities.
- Provide a variety of transportation choices.
- Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost-effective.
- Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions.
U.S. housing needs an urgent boost in climate preparedness, affordability, and transit accessibility
Climate-resilient, sustainable housing is scarce but indispensable
Housing policy can be an important tool for both climate change mitigation and adaptation. Where housing is located, how it is built, and who it serves can determine how residents are exposed to and protected from climate hazards.14 Climate change is a threat multiplier that weakens the integrity of homes and property, air and water quality, human and environmental health, and economic growth.15 Fast-growing, densely populated areas face some of the greatest climate risks from extreme heat waves and other natural disasters.16 These risks put a strain on the nation’s infrastructure, most of which has not been designed in anticipation of climate change or its impacts on homes, transportation, and energy systems.17
Where housing is located, how it is built, and who it serves can determine how residents are exposed to and protected from climate hazards.
At the same time, housing, transportation, and land use choices have a significant impact on domestic emissions. Together, the building and transportation sectors account for more than a third of all greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, at 13 percent and 28 percent, respectively.18 The transportation sector emitted 1.8 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2022, with 57 percent of these emissions coming from passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks.19 More than 200 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emitted in residential buildings come from the combustion of fossil fuels, specifically through natural gas-fueled space and water heating.
However, aggressive electrification and increased efficiency of residential buildings can cut sector emissions by 91 percent and provide $120 billion in utility bill savings for low- and moderate-income households by 2050.20 Electrifying transportation and increasing public transit could also deliver significant savings for Americans. According to the Department of Transportation and AAA, driving a gas-powered car can cost more than $12,000 per year.21 Switching to electric vehicles (EVs) and increasing transit use can save the United States $13 trillion cumulatively and the average American $2,000 a year.22 Moving away from polluting, fossil-fueled infrastructure by electrifying households and transportation can help reduce consumer costs and build climate resilience across sectors.
Housing quality is also in a particularly delicate state. In large metropolitan areas such as New York, San Francisco, and Detroit, at least two-thirds of homes were built before 1980—older than the average age of owner-occupied homes in the United States, which sits at 40 years.23 In half this time, home improvement and repair costs increase as systems and appliances reach their end-of-use lifetime. Old homes are not only costly to maintain but also less energy-efficient, and low-income families spend an even greater portion of their earnings to improve and maintain their homes.24 If new housing is not carbon-free or efficient, it may lock communities into dependency on fossil fuels and cost families more on utility bills over time.25
Electrifying homes ensures long-term emissions reduction and household savings, and though nearly a quarter of American homes are all-electric, there is still a sizable gap in the amount of appliance and machine electrification needed to deeply decarbonize housing.26 Building out a housing stock that is powered by clean energy would improve climate preparedness and safety for millions of American households still reliant on fossil fuel infrastructure.
Lack of housing affordability is worsening cost burdens and disparities
The United States is also in the midst of a housing shortage and affordability crisis, with low-income residents experiencing a 24 percent increase in rent in the past three years.27 Only 34 out of every 100 rental units are available to extremely low-income renters, contributing to a 7.3 million unit gap in affordable homes.28 The waning supply of affordable units is worsening cost burdens across income levels, though in the past few years, the share of cost-burdened renters has increased most for moderate-income earners who make between $30,000 and $74,999 annually.29 Housing disparities—pronounced along racial and socioeconomic lines—exist in affordability, infrastructure adequacy, elderly accessibility, energy performance, natural disaster preparedness, and home air quality.30
It is essential that new housing does not leave out low- and moderate-income Americans who have an even greater need for affordable, clean, and safe homes. Their ability to stay and age in place in their communities is an essential part of equitable housing, as higher living costs and new construction can often displace long-term residents when new investments are channeled into their gentrifying neighborhoods.31
See also
Limited access to public transit increases emissions and commuting costs
In addition to affordability, a lack of housing in proximity to public transit compounds housing inequities and emissions. The more than 2,000 transit service providers operating in the United States—929 urban and 1,281 rural—collectively delivered 36.87 billion passenger miles of travel in 2023.32 However, only a small share of Americans have access to high-quality public transportation, and those who don’t must drive to meet their daily mobility needs.33 Nearly 45 percent of Americans have no access to any form of public transportation, and only 2 percent of urban commutes in the United States are made on public transit, compared with 10 to 20 percent in Western Europe and up to 46 percent in East Asia.34 The lower transit share in the United States is a result of inadequate service coverage, poor service frequency, and failure to build development near public transit. This leads to dependence on personal vehicles.
This auto dependence raises household transportation costs. Transportation currently represents one of the largest drains on family finances, coming in as the fourth-largest expense behind health care, housing, and food.35 In 2021, American households spent $1.6 trillion on transportation alone.36 In 2023, the average American household is estimated to have spent more than $12,000—or more than $1,000 per month—on transportation.37 This money is largely spent on operating personal vehicles, including car payments, gasoline, maintenance, and parking. Transit access can slash these expenditures considerably, leaving families with more disposable income.
Auto dependence also locks in additional climate emissions. Reducing U.S. dependence on oil, or gasoline, also translates into significant benefits for pollution reduction and public health. Burning gasoline contributes to numerous health-harming air pollutants, such as nitrogen oxide, particulate matter (PM), volatile organic compounds, and ozone. These pollutants contribute to a wide array of health problems, including heart disease, asthma, and lung cancer.38 Public transportation access can vastly reduce these emissions, combating climate change and improving public health. A single passenger that takes public transit instead of a personal vehicle reduces associated greenhouse gas emissions by up to two-thirds for every mile traveled.39 Building out transit-oriented housing both decreases air pollution and ensures the accessibility and colocation of jobs, businesses, and community resources and services.40
The disparate burdens of air pollution from light-duty vehicles
Due to historic discrimination in highway siting and other housing and development practices, nonwhite Americans are exposed to disproportionate levels of health-harming air pollution from light-duty vehicles. Researchers find that Hispanic, Black, and Asian Americans are exposed to 48 percent, 42 percent, and 63 percent more fine PM pollution, respectively, from light-duty vehicles than white Americans.41 Alongside emitting far fewer greenhouse gas emissions, public transit also produces significantly fewer health-harming air pollutants. Furthermore, as zero-emissions vehicle technology such as electric buses becomes increasingly available, there are growing opportunities to completely eliminate emissions from public transit. While transit routes and infrastructure must be carefully considered to ensure that they do not perpetuate historical harms, such as the siting of high traffic routes through Black communities, expanding public transit is an opportunity to address long-standing environmental injustice.
Existing federal programs that support affordable, clean, and public transit-accessible housing can alleviate environmental hazards and housing disparities
An array of existing federal programs could be expanded and adapted to directly address challenges of housing convenience, availability, affordability, and sustainability. Listed below are five recommended policy reforms to these programs that can address existing challenges and maximize the programs’ contributions to housing development and transit accessibility.
Challenge 1: The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program is a long-standing but undersupported tool in expanding housing stock, affordability, and resilience
Created by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the Low-Income Housing Credit (LIHTC) is the largest source of federal support for the construction and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing in the United States. Between 1987 and 2022, LIHTC credits have flowed to more than 53,000 projects and produced or rehabilitated 3.65 million affordable units.42 Between 2000 and 2019, these credits supported one-quarter of all new multifamily apartment construction in the United States.43
How does the LIHTC work?
Tax credits help to bring down the cost of construction or rehabilitation, allowing the developer to offer units for rent at below-market rates for a specified number of years. Under the LIHTC program, the qualifying project is eligible to claim the tax credit over a 10-year period. Typically, the private developer will sell these credits to an equity investor through a process known as syndication. From the developer’s perspective, the benefit of syndication is that the value of the tax credit is realized upfront. The purchaser of the tax credit applies the credit to their tax liability over the 10-year period. According to recent research, the LIHTC has traded between 90 cents and 95 cents.44 This means that for every one dollar in tax credit, the project sponsor receives a little less than a dollar in equity capital to build the units. The developer accepts this modest discount because the benefits of upfront capital during construction are worth receiving less than the full value of the credit over time.
The Treasury Department distributes roughly $13.5 billion in tax credits to states each year.45 As a condition of the LIHTC program, state housing finance agencies are required to develop a qualified allocation plan (QAP) that details how the state will distribute its share of the LIHTC credits to private real estate developers. Importantly, the design of the QAP determines which projects will be chosen, including evaluating important criteria such as energy efficiency and where new affordable units will be located. The developer provides a housing project proposal to a housing agency outlining the project’s adherence to state LIHTC criteria; the stronger the proposal, the better the chance for application approval—and for project costs to be covered.
Federal regulations require state QAPs to include certain project selection criteria.46 For instance, QAPs must prioritize development applications that will “[serve] the lowest income tenants,” “serve qualified tenants for the longest periods,” and “are located in qualified census tracts.”47 Beyond these mandatory selection criteria, states have substantial flexibility to add other considerations when deciding how to allocate tax credits. More climate-resilient, transit-accessible projects should be weighed more than projects that are not. Yet all too often, the proximity of a proposed housing development to high-quality public transportation, and whether or not it is all-electric, is not given sufficient weight in the scoring process. Nearby transit service is often treated merely as an amenity as opposed to an essential feature of a successful development.48 This means that projects close to transit receive roughly the same number of points for mobility as proximity to other neighborhood amenities, such as public parks, libraries, grocery stores, or schools.
These neighborhood assets are certainly important, and frequent, affordable transit service can provide residents with access to all of a community’s amenities—including those that are not nearby. However, the inverse is not true. An affordable housing project located in a transit desert confines tenants to whatever jobs, services, and amenities happen to be nearby. In effect, the affordable unit exists on an island, exacerbating the geographic isolation of tenants. Safe, affordable, high-quality mobility is an essential aspect of modern life.
Solution: Reform the LIHTC program to extend the affordability compliance period to 20 years and require states to prioritize affordable, all-electric housing units located within a half-mile of high-quality public transit
Congress should reform the LIHTC program and require states to prioritize applications for new affordable units within a half-mile of high-quality public transit service with a larger allocation. Proximity to transit should rank as highly in the project selection scoring process as three essential criteria listed in the program regulations of income, affordability duration, and census tract. Congress should amend the LIHTC program to require states to prioritize energy efficiency and all-electric construction as highly as proximity to public transit. These construction features could include rooftop green space, solar, battery storage, heat pumps, sidewalk access, and protected bike lanes.
Examples of existing state LIHTC scoring that emphasizes equity, accessibility, and resilience
New Mexico’s LIHTC qualified allocation plan includes a range of inclusive housing priorities and selection criteria.49 For noncompetitive projects, housing must have set-asides for underserved populations, veterans, or families with children and be located within a 15-minute drive to a facility where fresh produce is available. For competitive projects, higher rank is given to housing that serves the needs of Tribal communities, is accessible to older adults, and remains affordable for longer than the state’s 30-year minimum. New Mexico’s LIHTC awards up to six points for “locational efficiency,” which requires housing to be in proximity or connected to services—such as supermarkets, pharmacies, gyms, public libraries, and recreation centers—or public transportation. For rural and Tribal housing, projects must be within a half-mile walk to a commuter bus or rail stop.
Washington, D.C.’s LIHTC evaluation criteria contain a range of housing priorities, including affordability, nonprofit participation, workforce development, access for older adults, and proximity to community amenities.50 Under the “Community-Oriented Features” criterion, a housing project’s maximum score for “Resilient Buildings and Innovative Design” is 22—the highest-weighted category for this criterion. Under the “Place-Based Priorities” criterion, “Proximity to Transit” has a maximum score of 10, which is the second-highest weight in this criterion. Giving greater weight to categories such as these would incentivize developers to design, construct, or update housing that is climate-ready, accessible, and affordable; other states and localities can enhance their QAPs by similarly increasing scoring for LIHTC applications that commit to these measures.
Challenge 2: Transit build-out often leads to increases in property value, pricing out low- and middle-income households and individuals
A long-standing challenge to locating affordable housing near high-quality public transportation has been acquiring and upzoning parcels along the corridor. Historically, it takes a number of years to build the political support, carry out the formal planning, and conduct the environmental review necessary to improve or expand transit service. During this time, private-sector developers often acquire ideal parcels with the intent of delivering market-rate housing or mixed-use developments.
Solution: Allow recipients of FTA formula grants to use their annual allocation to buy land in anticipation of future affordable housing development
The Urbanized Area Formula Funding program is the largest federal program supporting public transit.51 Administered by the Federal Transit Administration, the program provides grant dollars to support capital expenditures, planning, jobs access and reverse commute projects, and, in limited cases, operating expenses related to public transit networks. Between 2022 and 2026, the program will disburse $6.4 billion to $7.0 billion per year.52 This funding is apportioned based on a statutory formula and dispersed differently depending on the size of the population being served. Funding is apportioned directly to transit service providers in metropolitan areas exceeding a population of 200,000 and to governors, who are then responsible for subsequent apportionment, for areas with populations between 50,000 and 199,999. Projects receiving funding are subject to limitations on federal cost share, which may not exceed 80 percent for capital costs, 85 percent for vehicle acquisition, and 90 percent for the cost of vehicle-related facilities. The federal cost share is also limited to 50 percent for operating expense assistance.
At present, the Urbanized Area Formula Funding program does not permit recipients to use these funds to buy real property to further affordable housing development. This limitation means that private developers pursuing market-rate housing or mixed-use developments with market-rate units typically snap up attractive parcels located along new or improved transit lines. As a result, new and improved transit service does not deliver the full potential mobility benefit to low- and moderate-income households. Moreover, it means that new affordable housing is often built in more geographically isolated areas.
Allowing the transit authority to use a portion of its formula funds (49 U.S.C. 5703) to land-bank parcels for future affordable housing development would ensure that transit service delivers substantial mobility benefits to low-income households. This reform would allow transit authorities to acquire land beyond the strict confines of a direct transit service provision while keeping with the long-standing public purpose of advancing affordable housing. Increasing the supply of affordable housing near high-quality public transportation would clearly “increase the general public welfare.”53
Challenge 3: Zoning reforms that increase the nation’s affordable housing supply can be costly
Reforming local land use and zoning regulations is a critical step to closing the housing needs gap. In many high-cost metropolitan areas, the market would build more housing if land use controls were loosened. Yet reforming land use and zoning regulations requires significant staff time and, typically, the assistance of outside consultants. Allowing recipients of Economic Development Initiative (EDI) and Community Project Funding grants to spend a portion of their allocation on the costs associated with reforming local land controls would help advance this much-needed reform.
Solution: Allow local governments to use either their CDBG or CPF grants from HUD to cover the cost of reforming land use and zoning regulations to permit more housing development, with expedited application approval for projects participating in the LIHTC program
Equitable land use and zoning rules can increase the nation’s affordable housing supply. Upzoning, which allows for the construction of multiple housing units on a single plot of land, would result in higher density and diversity of housing.54 An existing, well-funded mechanism for incentivizing upzoning is HUD’s Community Development Block Grant program, along with the Community Project Funding grants. In fiscal year 2024, the CDBG formula program distributed $3.3 billion and the EDI-CPF program delivered $3.3 billion in congressionally funded grants.55 The EDI-CPF grants are awarded through a congressionally directed application process and fund projects for housing, resilience planning, and homelessness prevention, among other services.
Adding this eligibility would allow local governments to use their federal allocation to reform their local land use and zoning policies to allow for the construction of higher-density, resilient, affordable housing. HUD’s new Pathways to Removing Obstacles to Housing program similarly sets out to address zoning, land use policies, and regulations that are outdated and compound barriers to affordable housing.56
Challenge 4: Local land use and zoning restrictions constrict housing supply around existing transit routes and rights of way
A significant barrier to the development of “infill” housing is local land use and zoning regulations that artificially constrict supply.57 The emergence of land use controls in the early 20th century was a late Progressive Era reform intended principally to protect property values.58 Prior to the development of land use controls, both commercial and residential property owners faced the threat of economic losses from the arrival of a factory or other facility that would lower their property values. At a time with few regulations on business, the pollution and noise from a nearby factory or depot could quickly reduce property values. Once this legal tool was validated by the 1926 Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. U.S. Supreme Court ruling, local governments quickly used land use controls not only to avoid jarringly incompatible uses but also to further segregate along racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic lines through a process often referred to as exclusionary zoning.59
One of the most powerful and cost-effective ways for a local community to facilitate infill housing located near high-quality public transportation is to reform local zoning ordinances to allow greater residential and mixed-use density on infill locations, such as surface parking lots or underutilized vacant lots; these locations are preferable since they are already well connected to the community’s infrastructure and amenities.60
Solution: Prioritize discretionary FTA Capital Investment Grants for projects that are all-electric and have the greatest density zoned around transit stops to reduce costs and emissions
Comparing driving and transit costs across 20 of the largest cities in the United States with robust public transit systems, the American Public Transportation Association estimates that the regular use of public transit could save as much as $13,000 per year per person, largely through reduced expenditures on gasoline, vehicle maintenance, and parking.61 Having access to high-quality public transportation also reduces climate emissions from the transportation sector.62 There are ample opportunities for infill housing development along existing transit service lines; some examples include replacing surface parking lots with housing, vacant or underutilized municipal-owned properties, and/or vacant commercial “big box” properties. Infill housing takes advantage of existing infrastructure and services by converting unused or poorly used parcels into vibrant housing and mixed-use developments. Another way to think of infill housing is that it increases access to affordable, safe, and convenient public transportation without having to change service levels.
Challenge 5: Federal programs that offer momentous funding opportunities for sustainable, equitable, accessible housing are often siloed
New, historic funding opportunities exist for local jurisdictions to build climate-resilient buildings and transportation systems across the United States. Carrying out forward-looking climate standards for housing requires breaking down silos at the federal level in the investment and delivery of climate services and in programs to the American public.63 With escalating emissions, climate change-related disasters, and housing burdens, federal programs must play a central role in delivering holistic housing solutions to vulnerable communities facing growing energy and housing costs.64 The National Climate Resilience Framework identifies safe and affordable housing as a key aspect of climate change adaptation and resilience of the nation’s built environment, but to build a just, resilient future, the framework requires strengthened interagency coordination and cross-sectoral action that enhance effectiveness through existing programs.65
Solution: Reward applicants for discretionary grant programs at DOT, HUD, and the EPA that have upzoned around high-quality transit lines, reduced parking minimums, and mandated all-electric residential and commercial construction—or have removed barriers to their development
DOT, HUD, and the EPA offer numerous discretionary grant programs to support a variety of federal and local priorities, from affordable housing to workforce development. Just within the EPA, there is a suite of “smart growth” programs that provide funding for transit- and pedestrian-oriented projects, renewable energy adaptation and energy efficiency, and community development for improvements such as public facility installations and housing rehabilitation.66 These programs have broad reach and direct on-the-ground impacts in communities across the United States. This flexibility can be leveraged to support the construction and co-siting of affordable housing and transit. Some localities and cities are already demonstrating affordability, sustainability, and public transportation access measures in housing.
Indeed, cities and localities across the country are taking the lead on implementing joint housing measures on affordability, electrification, and transportation access. Implementing place-based housing solutions specific to communities is necessary to meet the unique needs of residents who live in areas with differing energy demand, buildings and transportation infrastructure, and climate threats.67 Below are a handful of examples of housing developments with different profiles but similar approaches to climate and transportation measures. Targeted federal funding could help these types of projects proliferate and accelerate housing availability.
![]()
Brunson Terrace is an all-electric, net-zero multifamily housing complex in Santa Monica, California.68 It offers 48 units for low-income renters, EV charging stations in basement resident parking, and 6,700 square feet of retail space.69 Brunson Terrace receives the 4 percent LIHTC credit and is a 15-minute walk from the train. The complex also has a LEED gold rating, uses Energy Star appliances, and has installed rooftop solar panels.70
Credit: Brunson Terrace, owned by Community Corporation of Santa Monica; photography by Brooks + Scarpa
![]()
5853 N Broadway is an upcoming 11-story, all-electric affordable housing project in Chicago.71 The building is adjacent to the city’s Red Line train and is one of 13 LIHTC awardees prioritizing inclusive development.72 It will offer Energy Star appliances, electric heat-pump heating and cooling, bike parking, and community space for an anticipated 90 residential apartments.
Credit: LBBA and Bickerdike Redevelopment Corporation
![]()
Via Verde is a 1.5-acre mixed-income multifamily housing complex in the South Bronx in New York City. The complex has 151 affordable units for low-income renters, 71 affordable units for middle-income renters, 7,500 square feet of retail space, and 45,000 square feet of green roof and spaces for residents.73 Via Verde receives the 9 percent LIHTC and is part of the Federal Home Loan Bank of New York Affordable Housing Program.74 It has LEED Gold accreditation, uses solar power for common area lighting, and is located four blocks away from the 149th Street subway station. Via Verde’s key priorities include sustainable design, healthy living, and urban revitalization.
Credit: Via Verde: designed by Dattner Architects and Grimshaw; developed by Phipps Houses and Jonathan Rose Company; photography David Sundberg/Esto
Conclusion
Increasing affordable and sustainable housing and transportation saves households money, improves public health, and helps communities mitigate and adapt to climate change. In order to support a rapid expansion of desirable and resilient housing units, the federal government should expand and target funding for existing housing programs to build out all-electric, affordable, and transit-accessible housing. Electrifying new and existing residential buildings and the modes of transportation Americans rely on to travel from them will ensure lower energy and transportation costs, increased energy and fuel efficiency, improved air quality, and a more equitable housing future.75
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Lucero Marquez, Shannon Baker-Branstetter, Mariam Rashid, Jamie Friedman, Cathleen Kelly, and Trevor Higgins from the Center for American Progress; Toccarra Thomas, Chris Rall, and Katharine Burgess from Smart Growth America; and Tony Sirna from Evergreen Action for their review and contributions.