Location, location, location: the true cost of locality

With the housing market down and oil prices on the rise, affordable living seems far less attainable than it did a few years ago.

As costs continue to compound -- from housing and transport to goods and foods -- it's tempting to throw up your hands in defeat. 

At the Rocky Mountain Institue, instead of thinking of all these as separate problems in need of separate solutions, we like to think of them as systemic problems in need of whole-systems solutions.

Rather than address high gas prices by looking for the cheapest gas in your zip code, we find solutions that will reduce our need to use that gas in the first place.

So, too, with housing.

Financial planners often suggest spending less than 30 percent of your annual income on rent or a mortgage. As a result, it seems logical to choose cheaper housing on the outskirts of an urban center.

But typically the farther away your housing is from work and town, the higher and more inflexible your transport costs are. 

This makes intuitive sense. Recently, however, the Center for Neighborhood Technology, Brookings Institution, and The Center for Transit-Oriented Development tested the idea empirically by measuring the true cost of housing in metropolitan areas around the United States.

The groups' analysis formed this Affordability Index.  Among the findings, people who live close to transit, jobs, schools, and retail -- typically in cities and inner-ring suburbs -- spend up to $2,100 less per annum on gasoline than residents of outer-ring suburbs.

The Affordable Index tool also tracks what $4 a gallon of gasoline means for transport costs and housing location.

The take-home message: Living in city centers, though often a bit pricier, may be more economical in the long run, especially once transport costs are factored in.

At the city or municipality level, co-locating jobs, shops, and housing is one of those integrated solutions that helps lessen the pain of high oil prices.  It also builds community, reduces environmental impacts, improves local economies, and enhances convenience.

Examples from Europe to the United States are confirming the reality of these benefits.

Meanwhile, if moving isn't in your near-term plans, taking mass transit, carpooling, and using car-sharing services can also ease the pressure on your pocket book.

Maria Stamas is an analyst at Rocky Mountain Institute.