The Build More Housing Near Transit Act of 2025 amends 49 U.S.C. 5309 to add a defined “pro-housing policy” and a set of actions that count toward that policy. It designates parking minimum removals, by-right multi-family approvals with objective standards, reduced minimum lot sizes, and commitments of publicly held land for housing with a substantial portion of units affordable to low-income households, among other actions.
It also authorizes an elevated project-justification rating for projects near transit when applicants document pro-housing policies in the project area, and directs interagency collaboration with the Department of Housing and Urban Development to develop a methodology to evaluate housing production tied to these policies. Finally, it requires reporting on projects that obtain rating adjustments and the resulting housing units.
This expands the leverage of transit investments to drive housing supply in transit-rich areas, contingent on regulatory and planning changes at the local level.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds a new defined “pro-housing policy” to 5309 and enumerates actions that qualify as pro-housing, including parking- and zoning-relief measures, density increases via by-right approvals, and public-land housing commitments. It also creates a rating uplift mechanism tied to documented pro-housing policies near transit.
Who It Affects
Federal transit project sponsors (state and local transportation agencies) applying for 5309 grants, planning departments implementing housing-friendly reforms, and developers/affiliates pursuing transit-oriented housing.
Why It Matters
Significantly raises the potential grant reward for jurisdictions that remove regulatory barriers to housing near transit, aiming to accelerate affordable housing production in high-demand corridors.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill updates the framework for federal transit capital grants under Section 5309 to recognize proactive housing-supportive policies. It defines “pro-housing policy” as state or local actions that reduce regulatory barriers to housing—especially near transit—and lists concrete actions such as removing parking minimums, enabling by-right approvals for multi-family housing based on objective standards, lowering minimum lot sizes, and repurposing publicly owned land for housing with a substantial affordable component.
It also allows the grant-maker (the Secretary) to award a one-point increase on a five-point project-justification scale for projects that document pro-housing policies in areas within walking distance of transit along the project route. The Secretary must consult with HUD to develop a methodology to estimate the housing units that such policies would produce, including affordable units, and to ensure the approach is aligned with expected demand over the life of the project.
In addition, the bill requires reporting on projects that receive the adjustment, including the policies submitted and the projected housing units resulting from those policies.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a formal definition of “pro-housing policy” to 5309, listing actions that count toward it.
The act allows a 1-point uplift in the project justification rating for transit projects near housing-friendly policies backed by documentation.
The Secretary must consult with HUD to develop a methodology for measuring housing production outcomes from these policies.
Projects receiving a rating adjustment must report the pro-housing policies used and the expected number of housing units produced.
The changes apply to the federal transit capital grant program under 5309, influencing project selection and evaluation processes.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Pro-housing policy definition added
The bill expands the 5309 text to insert a new subsections defining what constitutes a pro-housing policy. It designates that pro-housing actions are those at the state or local level that remove regulatory barriers to housing, including affordable units. This sets the stage for counting specific regulatory changes as eligible policy actions for grant considerations.
New paragraph (6): Pro-Housing Policy
Paragraph (6) names a non-exhaustive set of policy actions that qualify as pro-housing, including removing parking minimums, establishing by-right approvals for multi-family housing with objective standards, reducing minimum lot sizes, dedicating substantial publicly held land for housing (with affordability), and lifting height or density limits. It also permits the Secretary to add other policies in consultation with HUD. These actions are the operational hooks the bill uses to link housing outcomes with grant eligibility.
Rating uplift for pro-housing policies
Subparagraph (D) authorizes an increase of one point on the project-justification scale when the applicant provides documented evidence of pro-housing policies in areas within walking distance of transit along the project route. This creates a measurable incentive to pursue and document housing-friendly changes as part of the grant submission.
HUD consultation on methodology
Subparagraph (E) requires the Secretary to consult with HUD to develop a methodology for evaluating, as feasible, how pro-housing policies translate into actual housing production—including affordable units—over the life of the project. This seeks to align policy intent with measurable housing outputs.
Reporting on policy impact
Paragraph (D) of subsection (o)(1) adds a reporting requirement for projects that received a rating adjustment under (g)(2)(D). It requires information about the pro-housing policies submitted and the estimated housing units (including affordable units) expected to result from those policies. This creates accountability around the claimed housing outcomes.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Housing across all five countries.
Explore Housing in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State and local transportation agencies applying for 5309 grants, which can improve project ratings by documenting pro-housing policies near transit.
- Affordable housing developers and non-profits that can leverage by-right processes, reduced parking requirements, and land-use reforms to lower costs and accelerate production.
- Municipal planning departments that adopt pro-housing reforms (e.g., parking reforms, density increases) to streamline approvals.
- Communities in transit-rich areas, particularly low- and moderate-income households, benefiting from increased access to housing near transit.
- HUD and policymakers through formalized methodology development to measure housing production outcomes.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local governments bearing administrative costs to implement, monitor, and document pro-housing policies.
- Jurisdictions that offer parking minimum removals or height/density changes may face revenue and community-expectation trade-offs during transition.
- Transit agencies and grant administrators will need to adjust evaluation processes and ensure compliance with documentation requirements.
- Developers who do not pursue pro-housing policies might be less competitive for grants.
- Uncertainty and risk if housing production projections do not materialize as expected, potentially affecting program outcomes and perceptions of effectiveness.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing the desire to accelerate housing supply near transit by loosening regulatory barriers with the need to maintain local planning sovereignty, rigorous review, and accurate measurement of housing outcomes.
The bill ties a portion of transit funding decisions to state and local land-use reforms framed as pro-housing policies. While this could accelerate the construction and preservation of affordable units near transit, it also raises questions about local control, evaluation standards, and the reliability of projected housing outputs.
The mechanism relies on measurable actions and externally verifiable standards, but the bill does not fully specify how each policy will be judged or how robust the projected housing numbers must be. There is potential tension between streamlining approvals and preserving public input, environmental review, and neighborhood processes.
Additionally, the reliance on a methodology developed with HUD introduces coordination risk and questions about timing, consistency, and comparability across jurisdictions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.