Lunch links: Affordable and accessible

by David Alpert • March 24, 2010 12:23 pm

Affordable areas factoring in transportation. From CNT.

We're really affordable!: The latest fantastic Ashley Halsey story looks at the relative costs of living around the country when factoring in transportation costs. Thanks to our transit, the Washington region is actually more affordable than most across the country. The average area household spends $12,000 a year on transportation. (Post, Cavan, Eric F.)

Every bus stop is political: Consolidating too-close bus stops is the quickest way to improve bus service, but is also politically very difficult. San Francisco has been trying to consolidate stops since 1990. (Human Transit, Michael P)

PG snow debate neglects pedestrians?: Prince George's held a hearing on the snow, but either they didn't talk at all about the failure to clear sidewalks which led to someone being killed, or the Gazette didn't mention it. (Gazette)

Bloggers for WMATA Board?: The new mayor of Houston, Annise Parker, nominated a blogger and activist as one of several to serve on the city's transit board. (Houston Chronicle, Michael P)

GPS making us dumb?: Does using GPS navigation instead of paper maps reduce people's geographical literacy? (Miller-McCune via @IMGoph)

Congress to dig holes, point transit systems into it?: Congress is considering letting transit agencies use more of their capital for operating expenses to close budget gaps, but APTA thinks this is a bad idea. WMATA already can do this under current law since they haven't already maxed out as other agencies have, but as we've discussed, they probably shouldn't. (Streetsblog Capitol Hill)

Development dispatches: Swedish development firm Skanska is set to build a new, entirely speculative mixed-use office building with a church in it at 10th and G (Post, Cavan) ... Arts District at Hyattsvile will break ground on its second phase, including a Busboys and Poets and Yes! Organic Market (DCmud) ... Fairfax and Loudoun are quibbling over the location of the future Route 28 station entrance on the Silver Line. (Fairfax Times)

Have a tip for the links? Submit it here.

15 comments

Tags: links

David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.

Comments
Add a comment »

I wonder if the article on affordability takes into consideration living close to a metrorail station, but having to commute to the many jobs that aren't metro accessible. Such that is happening with the BRAC move that is sending jobs out to the nether regions instead of locating them by public transportation to give more options.

by Donald on Mar 24, 2010 1:11 pm • link • report

Most job growth is taking places outside of the urban core of D.C., for what it's worth. So I don't know how useful that $12,000 premium actually is.

by MPC on Mar 24, 2010 1:14 pm • link • report

Although I want to agree with the findings of that CNT report, I can't help but wonder if the "transportation" cost factor includes car depreciation. That isn't a "real" number and can be easily changed by buying a used car.

Also the maps tend to skew heavy on PG county, which is probably more about lower house values there, rather than cheaper transport.

by charlie on Mar 24, 2010 1:30 pm • link • report

Re: Navigation

I've often felt the same way about GPS making people lose geographical literacy or feel that it's unnecessary. Turn-by-turn directions are only helpful if you already have a sense of spatial awareness, but they can also make one less observant.

The phenomenon of GPS hijacking human intelligence was illustrated perfectly in "The Office" when Michael drives his car into a pond, insisting all the while that the GPS device said to do it, so it must be right!

by Matthias on Mar 24, 2010 1:42 pm • link • report

@Matthias: agreed

by JessMan on Mar 24, 2010 1:49 pm • link • report

The medical costs associated with less-walkable forms are not included in this evaluation. There is growing evidence that populations who live in walkable areas, especially with access to transit, are more physically active and have decreased burden of chronic conditions associated with inadequate activity compared to those in areas without walkability/access to transit. E.g a 5% increase in walkability=32% increase in active transport; in walkable 'hoods vs. non overweight is 35% compared to 60%; linear relationship between hours spent driving/day and risk for type 2 diabets, etc.

Inadeqaute physical activity (the kind people get regularly through activities of daily living in walkable neighborhoods) are estimated to cost individuals and/or families an extra $2000 a year in medications alone, not including doctor's office visits.

by Bianchi on Mar 24, 2010 1:56 pm • link • report

@Bianchi:
There is growing evidence that populations who live in walkable areas, especially with access to transit, are more physically active and have decreased burden of chronic conditions associated with inadequate activity compared to those in areas without walkability/access to transit.

I wonder if these studies are controlled by income. It seems to me the health disparities would be even greater.

by oboe on Mar 24, 2010 2:07 pm • link • report

Yes. Any epidemiological study like this would not be considered professional and/or fit for publication if demographic variables were not controlled for. It is standard practice. An exception would be a report on a prevalence or incidence rate of a disease/condition not previlusly reported on, like West Nile Virus in NYC in the late '90's.
See this manuscript by Lawrence Frank: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VBF-4P6TH5F-1-9&_cdi=5925&_user=3285900&_pii=S0277953607003139&_orig=search&_coverDate=11%2F30%2F2007&_sk=999349990&view=c&wchp=dGLbVlW-zSkWb&md5=c5c5e5a7c8ac33ac93a112ee20f9b3a6&ie=/sdarticle.pdf

by Bianchi on Mar 24, 2010 2:23 pm • link • report

previously.

by Bianchi on Mar 24, 2010 2:24 pm • link • report

Did the study take size into account? I mean, housing isn't just cheaper in the exurbs, it also tends to be much larger. For many people, simply having more space is more desirable even when balanced against increased transportation costs.

by Adam L on Mar 24, 2010 2:40 pm • link • report

I haven't seen these new numbers yet, but in past studies I'm familiar with, those areas with the lowest transportation costs also had the highest housing costs, and vice versa.

by Froggie on Mar 24, 2010 3:50 pm • link • report

I should elaborate...that was at the metropolitan region level and not at a neighborhood level which is what the map David posted appears to be at.

by Froggie on Mar 24, 2010 3:50 pm • link • report

@ Adam L, what you describe is the definition of cheaper. That is, getting more sq. footage for the same price or price/sq.foot
@ froggie-those areas with the lowest transportation costs also had the highest housing costs, and vice versa.
isn't that the point of the study, that it seems cheaper b/c housing is cheaper but then transportation costs (and the medical costs I pointed out too) make up for the savings on housing?

by Bianchi on Mar 24, 2010 4:24 pm • link • report

Re: Operating assistance for transit

Not so much a GGW issue, but small cities and rural programs need this funding flexibility, as they often serve only people who are transit dependent. These areas often do not have the congestion and parking issues that drive demand among people who have transportation choices. As such, local political leaders do not necessarily feel that transit services are a priority for limited local funds. It really is a "Catch-22" for small cities-- they cannot afford to provide a level of service that would attract choice riders and without that level of service, they cannot attract a ridership base with political clout. Thus, the need for federal operating assistance...

by Lib on Mar 24, 2010 7:30 pm • link • report

I might be missing something, but isn't it misleading to use affordability (which is a function of living costs and income) instead of just living costs when looking into the true benefits of public transit in the cities? The most expensive (and most connected to quality mass transit) areas also have extremely high mean incomes. So, this doesn't reflect the real problem that places with very good mass transit are not affordable for those with medium to low incomes even factoring in the cost savings associated with mass transit (and even if we don't assume that these places are unaffordable, this report still doesn't tell us anything about that issue). Although it is important to show that mass transit can save people money this report seems to neglect the real problem of affordable, mass-transit accessible housing in the US.

by Mike on Mar 24, 2010 7:49 pm • link • report