Skip to main content
Open Access Publications from the University of California

The Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Berkeley has supported transportation research at the University of California since 1948. About 50 faculty members, 50 staff researchers and more than 100 graduate students take part in this multidisciplinary program, which receives roughly $40 million in research funding on average each year. Alexandre Bayen, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, is its director.

Cover page of Policy Brief: Social Equity Impacts of Congestion Management Strategies

Policy Brief: Social Equity Impacts of Congestion Management Strategies


To better understand the equity implications of a variety of congestion management strategies, researchers at the Transportation Sustainability Research Center (TSRC) at University of California, Berkeley analyzed existing literature on congestion management strategies and findings from 12 expert interviews. The literature review applies the Spatial – Temporal – Economic – Physiological – Social (STEPS) Equity Framework1 to identify impacts and classify whether social equity barriers are reduced, exacerbated, or both by a particular strategy. The congestion management strategies of interest were categorized into six broader categories: 1) pricing, 2) parking and curb policies, 3) operational strategies, 4) infrastructure changes, 5) transportation services and strategies, and 6) conventional taxation.

Cover page of Upzoning Under SB 50: The Influence of Local Conditions on the Potential for New Supply

Upzoning Under SB 50: The Influence of Local Conditions on the Potential for New Supply


In this brief, we explore what might happen were SB 50 to pass by taking a detailed look at local market conditions in four case study neighborhoods. Local context shapes financial and physical feasibility. When SB 827, the predecessor to SB 50, was under consideration, estimates of its impact on new housing supply were optimistic. Yet, most of these estimates focused on aggregate development potential and did not consider the on-the-ground reality of other zoning provisions that may influence development, what types of projects might pencil out, or what the existing stock looks like.

Cover page of Defining Sensitive Communities Under SB 50

Defining Sensitive Communities Under SB 50


In this brief, we analyze the coverage of the definition of “sensitive communities” that was included in the March 2019 revisions to theSB 50 bill language – we call this the “SB 50 Sensitive Communities” definition. We also present analysis of two alternative metrics –California SB 535’s definition of “Disadvantaged Communities” and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s “Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty” (R/ECAPs) –as comparison points. We present these comparisons as a way to discuss how different definitions influence which places would bedesignated as sensitive communities, rather than to recommend one definition over another. Developing an empirical metric to identify sensitive communities is complicated, as there is no one factor that perfectly measures vulnerability to displacement and marginalization, especially when one considers the diversity of places in California. This brief is thus designed to provide stakeholders with information about the currently proposed definition, as well as to highlight questions related to the provision’s implementation. The brief is accompanied by an interactive map,which allows stakeholders to see how the different definitions play out in their own communities.