As the presidential election approaches, housing affordability has emerged as a key issue resonating within political discussions, including at the recent vice-presidential debate. Vice President Kamala Harris has notably championed the concept of transit-oriented development (TOD) as a strategic approach to enhance housing availability in urban areas. Her advocacy stresses the necessity of integrating transit infrastructure with thoughtful housing policies, proposing that federal incentives should encourage states and local governments to consider the interconnectedness of housing and transportation.
Harris emphasizes that the federal government must take a holistic approach to planning, focusing on how transit can be leveraged to foster affordable housing development. The idea behind TOD is straightforward: by situating public infrastructure, such as housing, schools, and retail spaces, near public transit stops—like light rail and bus routes—cities can create vibrant, accessible neighborhoods that reduce reliance on automobiles. This model not only addresses housing shortages but also promotes sustainable urban growth.
The interest in TOD has ramped up considerably among urban planners nationwide, reflecting a growing acknowledgment of the need for smarter growth policies. According to Morteza Farajian from the Build America Bureau, there is currently a robust pipeline of TOD initiatives valued at $12 billion. This potential stems from more than 70% of recent applicants to the bureau’s innovative financing asset program focusing on TOD and urban redevelopment.
For instance, the Department of Transportation (DOT) has made strides by approving its first Transportation Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan dedicated to a TOD project in Washington State. With additional rule changes designed to streamline access to TIFIA and Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) loans, there lies a promising pathway for financing more projects. Legal experts believe the advantages of such federal financing mechanisms compared to traditional commercial options will further stimulate TOD initiatives.
Yet, despite this momentum, some experts express concern about the pace of progress. Yonah Freemark from the Urban Institute points out that, even with significant federal support possibilities, the realization of funding opportunities has been limited. The Washington project stands as a rare example, highlighting that enthusiasm has yet to translate into widespread action.
The housing crisis cannot be divorced from the discussions around zoning regulations, which remain a formidable barrier to achieving development goals. The recent vice-presidential debate underscored the shared sentiment among candidates that excessive regulation hampers housing development. Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota articulated the need for local governments to streamline processes, asserting that while federal initiatives set the tone, effective action occurs at the local level.
The complexity of zoning regulations poses an ongoing challenge; while local jurisdictions possess autonomy over land use policies, federal guidance can inspire shifts in local practices. The Trump administration had opportunities to leverage TOD financing mechanisms under existing legislation but opted not to finalize the necessary guidance. As a result, the ability of states and cities to tap into these resources has diminished, delaying progress at a time when immediate action is crucial.
In her housing proposals, Harris also advocates the creation of a $40 billion local innovation fund aimed at stimulating housing supply through inventive strategies. This fund could serve essential roles—balancing the need for new housing construction with efforts to alleviate regulatory burdens, encouraging innovative building techniques, and promoting self-sustaining financing strategies.
The potential benefits of this approach could be far-reaching. Economists at Redfin suggested that Harris’s initiatives could pave the way for denser, mixed-use developments in areas with high housing demand, effectively mitigating transportation costs and improving accessibility for residents.
However, achieving substantial progress in housing reform will necessitate a collaborative approach between federal initiatives and local governance. Past attempts to introduce comprehensive housing reform, such as the proposed package under the Biden administration, faced legislative hurdles. That said, the heightened visibility of housing issues during this electoral cycle may catalyze a shift in focus, prompting Congress to take active steps toward meaningful reform.
In a landscape where housing affordability has often been sidelined in political discourse, the mounting attention it secured during the election signifies a turning point. Advocates argue that sustained advocacy and support can help align federal, state, and local interests to work collaboratively in addressing the housing crisis.
While ambitious plans such as transit-oriented development hold promise, their success ultimately relies on a collective willingness to overcome bureaucratic hurdles and rethink urban planning strategies. By fostering environments that prioritize affordable housing near vital transportation corridors, there exists the potential for transformative impacts on urban living—creating not only communities that thrive economically but also enhancing the quality of life for countless residents.