Abstract

The relationship between housing and transportation costs has been the focus of much research, with classic urban theory positing that housing costs decrease and commuting costs increase as households move away from city centers. The growing population of low and low-moderate (LMI) households in suburbs may be taking advantage of lower housing costs, though research shows that housing cost savings in suburbs are offset by higher transportation costs. Our research explores dimensions of housing and transportation cost burden on LMI households in Contra Costa County in the San Francisco Bay Area using qualitative data from online/in-person surveys (n = 208) and interviews conducted in English and Spanish (n = 25).

We found that the housing burden is high, suggesting that LMI households choose to live in the suburbs for diverse reasons, including rising rents and other requirements (e.g., credit score, rental history) in core cities, and desire for home ownership and a safer environment for children. Yet LMI suburban residents are still vulnerable to rising rents and housing instability in suburban areas. In addition to high housing costs, transportation costs are higher in suburbs due to longer commutes and higher reliance on personal vehicles. Car access is necessary, especially for households with young children. Reliance on cars becomes an issue as LMI households often encounter maintenance issues with used cars or the inability to make car payments. When faced with a lack of car ownership, households rely on social networks or public transit, and in some cases, forgo trips or relinquish their vehicles entirely. The lack of quality transportation alternatives in suburban contexts, as existing public transit services, have long headways and are not well-suited to serving off-peak trips between suburban areas, leaves LMI households vulnerable.

Abstract

In recent decades, homelessness has become an increasingly major challenge in the U.S., reaching about half a million unhoused people. Many of them seek shelter in settings such as freeways, underpasses, and rest areas. State departments of transportation (DOTs) are responsible for the health and safety of these settings and their occupants, housed and unhoused. This study synthesizes existing literature and findings from interviews with staff from 13 state DOTs and eight service providers and organizations responding to homelessness. Homelessness represents a recognized and common challenge for DOTs, which face jurisdictional, financial, and legal hurdles in addressing it. DOT staff employ both “push” and “pull” strategies, the most common of which is encampment removals (“sweeps”). However, the effectiveness of such removals is limited, as encampments often reappear in nearby sites. Other strategies include “defensive design” and, more proactively, establishing or partnering with low-barrier shelters, providing shelters and sanitation on DOT land, and coordinating rehousing and outreach efforts. Our findings suggest that DOTs should acquire better data on homelessness on their lands, create a homelessness coordinating office, establish formal partnerships with nonprofits/service providers, and evaluate the necessity of encampment removals, through the development and utilization of prioritization criteria.