New research from the Center for Neighborhood Technology, with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, turns the conventional wisdom about affordable housing on its head. Rather than considering solely housing prices as a measure of affordability, CNT computed a formula that factors in transportation costs, yielding a very different portrait of affordability. They redefine true affordability as less than 45 percent of income for housing and transportation costs combined. (Typical affordability falls around 30 percent or less of income.) By this expanded measure, 48,000 communities deemed affordable by conventional metrics are actually unaffordable. The percentage of affordable communities drops from almost 70 percent by traditional measurements to just below 40 percent.

This release expands CNT’s previous work on this tool from just the biggest 52 metro areas to 337 metropolitan statistical areas across the U.S. So what does “location efficiency” mean?

While the concept of energy efficiency is a familiar term, locations can be efficient too. Compact neighborhoods with walkable streets, access to transit, and a wide variety of stores and services have high location efficiency. They require less time, money, and greenhouse gas emissions for residents to meet their everyday travel requirements.

The contrast between two communities – the Mt. Washington neighborhood in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and the Southern California suburb of Palmdale – provides a telling snapshot of affordability and “location efficiency.”

In Mt. Washington, perched above downtown Pittsburgh across the river, residents enjoy walkable streets, ample open space, a vibrant business district and close proximity to schools. Transit ridership is above average for the region, with 23 percent of workers using transit for the daily commute, and residents spend an average of $474 a month on transportation. The average combined housing and transportation cost, according to CNT’s formula, was 39 percent of income. In low-density Palmdale, the fastest growing city in Los Angeles County in 2009 but miles from the heart of L.A., only 4 percent of workers use public transportation for their daily commute and average transportation costs per month are nearly $900. According to CNT’s formula, average housing and transportation costs require 54 percent of income.

Palmdale, California, left, and Mt. Washington pictured with the blue areas showing places where housing + transportation costs total more than 45%. Screenshots from CNT.

Penny-wise and pound-foolish (or pound-fuelish) is how the report’s describes many Americans’ approach to affordability. So how can we increase people’s options, raise awareness of hidden transportation costs and encourage a broader view perspective on affordable housing?

CNT has three suggestions.

First, transportation costs should be as transparent as possible. A bill sponsored by Congressman Earl Blumenauer would do just that by requiring transportation costs to be disclosed in real estate transactions.

Second, future policies and investments in transportation should measure true affordability with this new yardstick. The Livable Communities Act, sponsored by Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, would move us in that direction.

And third, federal transportation law ought to provide more funding and incentives to increase transportation options and greater proximity between housing, transit and jobs. These changes must be included in the next reauthorization of the transportation bill, which Congress just extended to the end of 2010.

With low-income and impoverished residents increasingly concentrating outside of central cities in areas where transportation costs are much higher, we need to invest in the kinds of transportation options that will keep them from getting stranded when gas prices go up.

The good news is that many public officials get it. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has expressed his desire to broaden the criteria for transportation projects, and a new partnership between the Environmental Protection Agency, DOT and Housing and Urban Development is included in President Obama’s 2011 budget. As Elana Schor said on Streetsblog this morning, this data is “aimed at encouraging the Obama administration to update its measurement of affordability, a goal embraced by the heads of the three agencies participating in the inter-agency sustainability work.”

Ron Sims, deputy secretary at HUD, said the Center’s report “demands that we address the issue of transportation costs and the built environment so people can make a better decision about where they live and what they can afford.”

We echo that demand.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The chorus of organizations calling for a bold new vision for transportation continues to grow rapidly, with more than 350 signing on with Transportation for America as of August 1.

The diversity and breadth of the coalition also are expanding, with recent signatories including business groups such as CEOs for Cities and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group; mayors like Shirley Franklin of Atlanta and R.T. Rybak of Minneapolis; large and influential membership organizations such as AARP; and groups representing both rural and urban areas, including the Center for Rural Strategies and the Metropolitan Planning Council of Illinois.

“As one of the first mayors to sign on in support of Transportation for America’s vision for a new transportation system, I’m thrilled to see how much our coalition has grown,” said Mayor R.T. Rybak of Minneapolis. “As a mayor, I see firsthand the result of a failed federal transportation policy that’s been allowed to linger for far too long. Real change will come when we stand up and work together and that’s exactly what is happening with this effort.”

“The National Association of REALTORS believes that the timely provision of safe, convenient and efficient transportation infrastructure enhances the quality of communities, supports property values, and mitigates the effects of traffic congestion that accompany growth,” said Bob McNamara of NAR. “NAR has joined Transportation for America to pursue these goals in coalition with other groups representing the diverse users of the nation’s transportation system.”

“The current transportation system doesn’t work for older Americans,” said David Sloane, AARP senior vice president for Government Relations and Advocacy. “Without reform, the 71 million people reaching age 65+ by 2030 will risk being stranded at home in old age. We need comprehensive restructuring of our nation’s transportation policies to address changing needs for alternative transportation and paratransit services, safer roadways and vehicles, and more livable and sustainable communities. AARP commends Transportation for America on its success in forging partnerships with diverse organizations across the country, from neighborhood to national, and particularly for reaching the milestone of adding its 350th partner.”

“Healthy transportation options and networks not only accommodate access and mobility needs but are a key determinant of quality of community life,” said Melanie Reynolds with the Lewis and Clark City-County Health Department and the Association of Montana Public Health Officials. “We need federal leadership to help make the critical link between health, safety, and transportation policies and create communities that promote active living, reduce pollution levels, increase accessibility, and ensure safety for all transportation users.”

“America’s 60 million rural residents need a voice in transportation policy. The coalition has offered us a way to bring rural concerns into an important national conversation,” said Tim Marema, vice president of the Center for Rural Strategies. “Good transportation policy will improve prospects for all of us – rural, suburban, and urban. The coalition provides a way for all Americans to work together to build a stronger nation.”

The Transportation for America campaign is working to help reform the nation’s transportation policies and investments to preserve the existing network while promoting the transition to a clean, efficient, energy-independent future. Currently the campaign is focused on the authorization of the six-year expiring federal transportation bill and securing investments that fix crumbling bridges and highways as well as increase support for the cleanest forms of transportation — public transit, high speed rail, walking and biking.

“Transportation for America is thrilled to lead such an impressive group of organizations, elected officials and businesses with the shared goal of building a modernized infrastructure to support livable communities where people can live, work and play,” said James Corless, director of Transportation for America. “This groundbreaking grassroots movement will change our federal transportation policy to make our communities, safer, healthier and more prosperous.”

Smart Growth America released a report today examining how well states have been spending these billions. As they say on the Smart Growth America blog today, not only did the money arrive in a time of economic recession, but “at a time of embarrassingly large backlogs of road and bridge repairs, inadequate and underfunded public transportation systems, and too-few convenient, affordable transportation options.”

So after 120 days, how have states done in addressing these pressing needs and investing in progress for their communities?

After analyzing project descriptions provided by states and MPOs, Smart Growth America found forward looking states and communities that used the stimulus money as flexibly as possible, repairing roads and bridges and making the kinds of smart, 21st century transportation investments that their communities need to support strong economic growth.

Other states and communities missed this golden opportunity to create jobs while making progress on their most pressing transportation needs. These states spent their precious funds on building new roads rather than repairing existing roads, and ignored the chance to spend the money flexibly on the kinds of options that their residents really want — like public transportation or streets safe for walking and biking — leaving their communities stuck in traffic and stuck in the past.

…Despite the golden opportunity of extra funding, most states did not use the opportunity to make as much progress as possible on long-term goals. Even though repair backlogs can stretch years or decades into the future, nearly one-third of the money, $6.6 billion, went towards roadway new capacity projects. At a time when public transportation ridership is hitting all-time highs and the budget crunch is causing transit agencies to cut routes, service and jobs, an abysmal 2.8% was spent on public transportation. Only 0.9% percent was spent on non-motorized projects (i.e., bike and pedestrian projects).

Read more about the report and download the full version from Smart Growth America.

We wanted to highlight this piece from Reuters’ Infrastructure Summit — especially an appearance by T4 America Partner The Citizens’ Transportation Coalition. Chairwoman Robin Holzer and the CTC have been working hard to bring attention to one of the most wasteful projects receiving money from the stimulus, using it as one more example to show how “the federal transportation funding system is broken, it’s just broken.”

(Our good friends at Streetsblog just beat us to the punch and posted the story, so we’ll summarize and point you there.)

While bridges crumble and roadways crack, and the poor state of our infrastructure far outweighs the amount of money we intend to spend on maintaining what we already have, we’re sending $181 million in stimulus funds to Houston to build a section of a new outer loop highway (the outer outer outer outer loop, to be completely correct.)

In the piece, Robin Holzer discusses the waste of building an unneeded new highway — but more pointedly, how spending scarce federal funds on an unnecessary project will keep Houston from spending money where the investment (or repair) is needed the most.

From Ben Fried’s post on Streetsblog:

Reuters just wrapped up a two-day “Infrastructure Summit” and published a great collection of stories about the state of transportation policy in the U.S. I especially like this piece, featuring Robin Holzer of the Houston-based Citizens’ Transportation Coalition, who does a great job illustrating some of the major deficiencies that the federal stimulus bill failed to address:

Under the current system that U.S. President Barack Obama has maintained, at least for now, the U.S. government will pay as much as 80 percent of the multibillion dollar cost of a proposed 180-mile ring road around Houston — its fourth such loop — even though it serves a thinly populated rural area.

In contrast, an expansion of the city’s light-rail system is only eligible for getting 50 percent of the cost paid by the federal government, she said.

Yet more than 147,000 people live within a half-mile of the ten stations on the light rail system, Holzer said.