ABSTRACT
We examine pre-COVID declines in transit ridership, using Southern California as a case study. We first illustrate Southern California's unique position in the transit landscape: it is a large transit market that demographically resembles a small one. We then draw on administrative data, travel diaries, rider surveys, accessibility indices, and Census microdata for Southern California, and demonstrate a strong association between rising private vehicle access, particularly among the populations most likely to ride transit, and falling transit use. Because we cannot control quantitatively for the endogeneity between vehicle acquisition and transit use, our results are not causal. Nevertheless, the results strongly suggest that increasing private vehicle access helped depress transit ridership. Given Southern California's similarity to most US transit markets, we conclude that vehicle access may have played a role in transit losses across the US since 2000.
ABSTRACT
How renters respond to economic hardship, and how landlords respond when tenants fail to make rent, are understudied questions, owing largely to limited data. We use experiences from the COVID-19 pandemic to begin answering these questions. Drawing on both new census data and two original surveys of renters in Los Angeles County, we test nine hypotheses about the sources of renter distress and landlord reactions to it. We find that lost work and lost income are the primary drivers of missed or late payments. Most tenants who fell behind entered into repayment plans with their landlords. Eviction threats were uncommon but increased as the pandemic persisted. Landlords were more likely to threaten eviction as tenants fell further behind, and smaller landlords were more likely than larger ones to cut tenant services and threaten or initiate evictions. Our evidence suggests that government income support helped tenants pay rent and thus helped stave off eviction threats. We also find that tenants took on other forms of debt, such as credit cards, loans from family, etc., to make rent. These debt burdens generally will not be relieved by housing assistance, and so require other policy responses.
ABSTRACT
Would increasing allowable housing densities in expensive cities generate more housing construction and make housing more affordable? In a provocative article, Andrés Rodríguez-Pose and Michael Storper survey the evidence and answer no. Restrictions on housing density, they contend, do not substantially influence housing production or price. They further argue that allowing more density in growing metropolitan areas would only improve housing outcomes for the affluent, and most likely harm the poor. We take issue with both of these contentions. While uncertainties remain in the study of housing prices and land use regulation, neither theory nor evidence warrant dispensing with zoning reform, or concluding that it could only be regressive. Viewed in full, the evidence suggests that increasing allowable housing densities is an important part of housing affordability in expensive regions.
