Let People Live Near the Train
California just took a major step toward solving two of its most pressing challenges at once: the housing crisis and climate change. Senate Bill 79, which passed the state Senate this month, could fundamentally reshape how and where Californians live, and it's all about getting people closer to public transit. By reducing reliance on cars, transit-oriented development can significantly cut household costs; dropping from two cars to one can save a family over $12,000 a year, according to AAA.
We have had some housing failures this week, In CT, with Governor Lamont stating he would veto HB 5002, a common-sense housing bill, and in NYC, the affordable housing plan for Elizabeth Street Garden being scrapped — I figured it would be nice to discuss a bill that has been making some positive development!
What SB 79 Actually Does
Think of SB 79 as California's attempt to fix a glaring contradiction: we spend billions on transit systems, then make it illegal to build apartments near the stations.
SB 79 establishes statewide zoning standards that make it faster and easier to build multi-family housing within walking distance of major transit stops. The bill, authored by State Senator Scott Wiener and dubbed the "Abundant & Affordable Homes Near Transit Act," essentially overrides local zoning rules that have long banned dense housing around transit stops. Here's what changes:
Upzoning Around Transit: SB 79 requires cities to allow multi-family buildings near major transit stops—up to seven stories immediately next to stations, with gradually lower height limits extending half a mile out. These minimum zoning standards vary by proximity and transit frequency, ensuring more homes can be built where transit access is strongest.
Transit Agency Land Use: The bill allows public transit agencies like BART or Metro to develop housing on their own land—such as parking lots—at the same or higher density than local zoning permits. This encourages turning underused public land into housing while generating revenue for transit systems.
Streamlined Approvals: Projects that meet SB 79’s criteria qualify for by-right approval and can use the fast-track review process created by SB 423. This cuts delays from local politics or California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and speeds up construction near transit.
Local Flexibility: Cities can propose their own transit-oriented plans if they match or exceed the housing capacity required by SB 79. These local alternatives must be approved by the state’s housing department and can redistribute density while still meeting overall targets.
SB 79 directly enables more housing near transit by legalizing multi-family development in areas where local zoning has long banned it. It sets statewide standards that allow mid-rise buildings near major transit, streamlines approvals to cut delays, and opens public transit agency land for housing. By pairing these changes with affordability requirements, the bill supports both housing growth and equity, helping lower costs for families and boosting transit ridership.
Benefits of Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)
Building dense, mixed-use housing near transit stations brings wide-ranging public benefits—backed by national research. TOD encourages higher transit ridership and less car dependency, leading to cleaner air, less traffic, stronger local economies, and more affordable living.
The Cost of Living Benefits
Transit-oriented development (TOD) can improve housing affordability through multiple channels. First, increasing the housing supply in high-demand areas (like job-rich cities and transit corridors) helps to moderate price growth. California’s housing crisis is fundamentally a supply shortage – the state needs millions of new homes to catch up with demand. SB 79 tackles this by unlocking transit-area lands for development, which can relieve pressure on housing costs over time. As Senator Wiener stated, “California urgently needs to build more homes to bring down costs”, and doing so near transit is a strategic choice that addresses cost of living on two fronts. By allowing “an abundance of homes at all income levels” near transit stops, the bill aims to both lower housing costs and improve transit feasibility for families.
Just as important, TOD lowers the transportation costs that burden households. Transportation is the second-largest expense for most American families (after housing), but living in a transit-accessible, walkable neighborhood can drastically cut those costs. National data from the Center for Neighborhood Technology’s affordability index show that in car-dependent suburban neighborhoods, transportation can consume up to 25% of a household’s income, whereas in well-served transit neighborhoods it drops to around 9% of income. In other words, a family that might need two or three cars in a sprawl area may only need one or none in a transit-oriented community – saving thousands of dollars per year on car payments, gasoline, insurance, and parking. Those savings effectively make living in TOD areas more affordable, even if the rent or home price is somewhat higher, because the combined cost of housing + transportation is often lower than in outer suburbs.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) underscores this benefit, noting that TOD “helps to lower household transportation costs” by enabling more residents to rely on transit instead of car ownership. Additionally, TOD often allows reduced parking requirements for developers, which lowers construction costs and can translate to lower housing prices or the inclusion of more affordable units. In Buffalo, eliminating parking minimums citywide led to over 1,000 new housing units, 68% of which would have been illegal under the old zoning code, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center.
By building apartments near train/bus stops and not mandating multiple parking spaces per unit, developers save money that can facilitate offering units at lower rents or selling prices. Studies have found that parking can add tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of each housing unit; TOD helps avoid those costs and thus can provide a wider range of housing options that are more affordable to moderate- and low-income families.
Improved Environmental Outcomes
When people live in walkable, transit-rich neighborhoods, they are more likely to use transit or walk and drive less than those in car-dependent areas. According to a study by the Mineta Transportation Institute, residents within a half-mile of a transit station use public transit more frequently and drive fewer miles compared to those living 1–2 miles away, even after controlling for income, age, and other factors. Fewer cars on the road means less tailpipe pollution and lower carbon emissions. Indeed, increased transit ridership and decreased auto use are “generally accepted as public benefits – resulting in reduced air pollution [and] greenhouse gas emissions,” as well as fewer traffic accidents.
A study by the Center for Transit-Oriented Development also found that typical TOD neighborhoods produce 43% less greenhouse gas emissions than conventional suburban development. This is because denser, transit-served communities yield shorter trip distances and enable more trips by transit, biking, or walking rather than by private car. The EPA also notes that compact development near transit helps to improve air quality, since “developing compactly and investing in public transit... make it easier for people to drive less, lowering greenhouse gas emissions” as well as other pollutants like particulate matter. By curbing sprawl and car dependence, TOD contributes to climate change mitigation and cleaner air. SB 79 explicitly aims to “slash climate emissions” through this approach, recognizing that where California builds housing (inward near transit versus outward on the fringe) has major implications for the environment. If you want to be taken seriously about mitigating climate change, this bill should be a no-brainer for you.
What Happens Next
This legislative year in California got off to a rocky start. Post-election, there was plenty of talk about making affordability the top priority, but we failed to see many bills get introduced—let alone pass—that actually hit that goal. Now Governor Newsom seems to be speaking a different tune, getting more direct about ensuring California gets out of its own way to achieve these objectives.
SB 79 passed the Senate 21-13, a solid margin that suggests growing political support for housing reform. Newsom has also thrown his weight behind related legislation, including bills that would exempt most urban housing developments from lengthy environmental reviews under CEQA. As he put it: "It's time to get serious about this issue, period, full stop. If you care about your kids you care about getting this done."
But the real test comes in the State Assembly, where local opposition often mobilizes. The bill tries to balance state mandates with local flexibility; cities can develop their own transit-oriented housing plans as long as they achieve the same increase in housing capacity as the state standards would require. It's a compromise that might be smart politics.
They'll argue about local control, neighborhood character, and parking. These are real concerns that deserve thoughtful responses.
But the fundamental question remains: if we're serious about climate change, housing affordability, and functional transit systems, can we afford not to build homes where people can actually use public transportation?
It's time to make it legal for more people to live near the train.