Beltway Burden

8/14/2019 Beltway Burden

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/beltway-burden 1/26

BELTWAYBURDEN

The Combined Cost ofHousing and Transportati

in theGreater Washington, DCMetropolitan Area

Terwilliger Center for Workforce Housing



BELTWAYBURDEN

The Combined Cost of Housing andTransportationin the GreaterWashington,DC,

MetropolitanArea



ii

J. Ronald Terwilliger, ChairmanChairman, Trammell Crow Residential

Henry CisnerosChairman, CityView

Carol GalantePresident & CEO, BRIDGE Housing

Bart HarveyFormer Chairman, Enterprise Community Partners

Bruce KatzVice President and DirectorMetropolitan Policy Program, The Brookings Institution

Jack Kemp

Principal, Kemp Partners

Robert LarsonChairman, Lazard Real Estate Partners, LLC

Rick LazioManaging Director of Global Real Estate and InfrastructureJP Morgan Asset Management

Nic RetsinasDirector, Joint Center for Housing Studiesof Harvard University

Richard RosanPresident, ULI Worldwide

Alan WienerManaging Director, Wachovia Securities

Pamela H. PatenaudeExecutive Director, ULI Terwilliger Centerfor Workforce Housing

National Advisory BoardULI Terwilliger Center for Workforce Housing

Copyright 2009 by ULI–the Urban Land Institute1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NWSuite 500 WestWashington, DC 20007


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/beltway-burden 4/26iii

About the Urban Land InstituteThe Urban Land Institute is a 501(c) (3) nonprofit research and education organization supported byits members. Founded in 1936, the institute now has more than 40,000 members worldwiderepresenting the entire spectrum of land use and real estate development disciplines, working inprivate enterprise and public service. As the preeminent, multidisciplinary real estate forum, ULIfacilitates the open exchange of ideas, information, and experience among local, national andinternational industry leaders and policymakers dedicated to creating better places.

The mission of the Urban Land Institute is to provide leadership in the responsible use of land and increating and sustaining thriving communities worldwide. Members regard ULI as a trusted idea placewhere leaders come to grow professionally and personally through sharing, mentoring, and problemsolving. With pride, ULI members commit to the best in land use policy and practice.

About the ULI Terwilliger Center for Workforce HousingThe ULI Terwilliger Center for Workforce Housing was established by J. Ronald Terwilliger, chairmanand CEO of Trammell Crow Residential, to expand housing opportunities for working families. Themission of the Center is to serve as a catalyst in increasing the availability of workforce housing inhigh-cost communities by harnessing the power of the private sector.

The Center supports the development of mixed-income communities close to employment centersand transportation hubs. Through a multifaceted approach the Center facilitates research, advocatesfor public policy change, publishes best practices, convenes housing experts, and works to eliminate

regulatory barriers to the production of workforce housing.

AcknowledgmentsThis report was prepared by the ULI Terwilliger Center for Workforce Housing and the Center forHousing Policy, based on research conducted by the Center for Neighborhood Technology.

R E P O R T D E S I G N B Y S A U N D E R S D E S I G N





Executive Summary WORKING FAMILIES in the Washington, DC, metro area face many challenges.By national standards the median household income of $78,000 is high, but so tooare the costs of owning or renting a home. Pockets of affordable housing exist inparts of the District of Columbia and Prince George’s County, MD, but most of thehomes in the central and inner suburbs, particularly in adjoining Fairfax County, VA,

and Montgomery County, MD, are far beyond the means of the median-income family.

To find affordable homes, many in the workforce have followed the popular advice to“drive till you qualify” by moving to remote suburbs such as Warren and Fauquiercounties, VA, in the west; Spotsylvania County, VA, and Charles County, MD, in thesouth; Frederick County in the north; and Calvert County, MD, in the east. Asreflected in this report, however, efforts to save on housing expenses often lead tohigher transportation costs, with the result that an even larger portion of householdbudgets are consumed by the combined burden of housing and transportation costs.

This report provides a comprehensive examination of the “cost of place” in theWashington, DC, region, presenting a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction look at thecombined housing and transportation cost burdens for households in themetropolitan area. Drawing on the latest research and methodologies, estimates ofhousehold transportation costs are used to develop a new way of looking at the totalcost of housing and the issue of housing affordability in the region.

Region-wide, households spend an average of nearly $23,000 per year on housingand $13,000 on transportation. Combined, these costs represent almost 47percent of the median household income . These cost burdens varysignificantly across the 22 jurisdictions. In some areas where households spendmore on housing, they tend to spend less on transportation and vice versa. Acrossthe metropolitan area, however, there are neighborhoods where households aresaddled with both high housing and high transportation cost burdens.

For many working families, the combined burdens of housing and transportation costsmay be too great to bear. Mortgage foreclosures in the Washington, DC, metro areatopped 15,500 in the second quarter of 2008 alone, more than double the number forthe same time a year ago. Many of the foreclosure “hot spots” are in areas with hightransportation cost burdens, exacerbated by recent fluctuations in gas prices.

Policy ImplicationsWhat can be done to bring the combined costs of place within reach of thosein the workforce? Part of the answer lies in creating more housing andtransportation choices. Local policymakers in the region can work to ensure that

the housing opportunities offered in desirable close-in locations include optionsthat are affordable to households with a wide range of incomes. For example, newhousing developments near public transit stops often are geared only to the high-end of the market. Through a mix of sensible housing policies, includinginclusionary housing requirements or incentives, density bonuses for mixed-

income developments, and covenants to ensure ongoing affordability, communitiescould ensure that these developments include options affordable to all segmentsof the market. Recently, Fairfax County, VA, introduced the Workforce Housingprogram to ensure that 12 percent of all new housing around transit stops isaffordable to moderate-income households.

The DC Metropolitan region is home to one of the most successful transitsystems in the country, with a comprehensive network of subway and bus serviceand a growing number of transit-oriented developments. Yet many of the outlyingareas struggle with sprawl, and it is increasingly clear that we need to use ourexisting infrastructure more wisely and more intensively. For example, there is theneed for policies to preserve the existing stock of affordable housing in the cityand older suburbs — a valuable resource for families willing to make do withsmaller housing and fewer amenities. More compact development patterns wouldhelp make public transportation more economically feasible but also would attractretail and other uses that would allow individuals to meet more of their dailyneeds with shorter drives or by walking or riding a bike. By reducing the numberof vehicle miles that individuals travel each day, more compact development wouldreduce traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, and the transportation costburdens of households.

Area employers also have a role to play in both the problem and the solution.For some employees, driving to work is the only option. Employers canencourage more workers to telecommute from home or at nearby tele-workcenters to help reduce the commute time and expense of traveling to and fromwork. Employer assistance that enables employees to rent or buy homes closerto the location of their jobs or close to public transportation could also reducetheir reliance on driving.

Finally, housing and transportation advocates should work together to advocate formore resources to maintain and improve the public transit systems in the region toreduce traffic congestion in close-in neighborhoods. Transit investments couldinclude “quality of life transit improvements” that emphasize improvements inexisting bus and rail service and expanded bus service in underserved or lowaccessibility areas.





The Combined Cos ts of Hous ing and Tr ans por tationin the Was hington, DC, Metr o Ar ea High housing and transportation costs are a fact of life for many

households in the Washington, DC, metro area. While this point isgenerally understood at the anecdotal level, this report provides newly

updated estimates of household transportation costs by census blockgroups throughout the region. Quantifying these costs — both alone andin combination — sheds new light on the issue of housing affordability,especially for working families. As the Housing Costs map on the oppositepage shows, low housing costs are found in the District of Columbia andeast of the city in Prince George’s County, MD. The vast majority of theother areas with relatively low housing costs is found in outlying

jurisdictions, some as farawayasSpotsylvania, VA,or Jefferson County, WV,and a considerable distance from major job centers.

Driven largely by high rates of auto ownership, high numbers of vehiclemiles traveled, and associated expenditures on gasoline, residents in theregion are spending substantial amounts on transportation. TheTransportation Costs map on the opposite page shows these averageannual expenses, which include not only the cost of commuting, but alsothe cost of trips for errands, schools, and other daily routines. Notsurprisingly, some of the highest transportation costs are in outer districtsencircling the central city and inner suburbs, as these areas are far from

job centers and have low residential densities, making long car tripsinevitable; they also are least likely to be served by public transit.

Finally, the map on this page shows the combined costs of housingand transportation. Given the relatively high incomes of residents inparts of Montgomery County, MD, and Fairfax and Loudoun counties, VA,it is not surprising that they spend the largest amounts for housing andtransportation. Although the combined costs in some of the outlyingareas clearly are lower than in areas closer in, these distant locations areby no means inexpensive places to live. Combined costs in Stafford and

Fauquier counties, VA, and Charles and Calvert counties, MD, forinstance, run as high as $39,000 to $40,000 annually, significantlyhigher than the regional average of $36,194.

Housing + Transportation Costsin the Washington, DC, Metro Area

0 10

miles20

Manassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas ParkManassas Park

ManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassasManassas

FairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfaxFairfax

AlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandriaAlexandria

Falls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls ChurchFalls Church

ArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlingtonArlington

Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.FauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George’s

FredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburgFredericksburg

District of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia

Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia

West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia

Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland

CalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvertCalvert

CharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharlesCharles

FrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederickFrederick

MontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryMontgomeryClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarkeClarke

LoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudounLoudoun

Prince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince WilliamPrince William

SpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvaniaSpotsylvania

StaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStaffordStafford

WarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarrenWarren

JeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJeffersonJefferson

Monthly Housing andTransporation Expendituresfor the Area Median Incomeearning household

Less than $2,000$2,000 to $2,500$2,500 to $3,000$3,000 to $3,500$3,500 to $4,500$4,500 and greaterNo Data Available

Employment Clusters

Water

JurisdictionsStates

Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology.

3

Monthly H & T Expendituresby Census Block Group

Less than $2,000$2,000 to $2,500$2,500 to $3,000$3,000 to $3,500$3,500 to $4,500$4,500 and greaterNo Data Available

Employment Clusters

Water

Jurisdictions

States



4

WHAT HOUSEHOLDS IN TH E WASHINGTON, DC,

A nnu al T r a n spo r tatio n Costs G r ay N um be r : Total A nnu al Ho u si n g a n d T r a n spo r tatio n Costs A nnu al Ho u si n g Costs

ENTIREMETRO AREA

MONTGOMERYCOUNTY, MD

STAFFORDCOUNTY, VA

CALVERTCOUNTY, MD

PRINCEWILLIAM

COUNTY, VA

CITY OFFALLS

CHURCH,VA

FAIRFAXCOUNTY, VA

FAUQUIERCOUNTY, VA

LOUDOUNCOUNTY, VA

CENTRALJURISDICTIONS

OUTER-RINGJURISDICTIONS

INNERSUBURBS

OUTERSUBURBS

$46,435

$16,525

$29,910

$39,974

$15,147

$24,827

$39,450

$16,832

$22,618

$41,485

$17,996

$23,489

$36,194

$13,234

$22,960$27,300

$13,950

$41,250

$19,688

$10,030

$29,718

$27,670

$12,392

$40,062

$25,074

$13,404

$38,478

$22,197

$17,277

$39,474

$23,952

$15,601

$39,553

$13,480

$37,840

$24,360$19,778

$16,435

$36,214

MEDIANINCOME

$82,719 $87,014 $68,032 $67,047 $78,221 $101,289 $77,917 $100,419 $89,829 $81,307 $84,111 $84,063 $89,628

Region-wide, households spend an average of nearly $23,000 per year on housing and $13,000on transportation. As the chart shows, however, there is substantial variation from one part of theregion to the next. Housing costs are lowest in the outer-ring jurisdictions, due in part to theirremote location, and in central jurisdictions, due in part to an aging housing stock. However,transportation costs are much higher in the outer-ring jurisdictions, leading to a higher combinedcost for housing and transportation. Similarly, housing costs are high in both the inner and outer

suburbs (offset by residents’ comparatively higher incomes), but the lower transportation costs ofthe inner suburbs lead to decidedly lower combined costs.

Some Areas with Low HousingCosts Appear More Expensive

Once Transportation CostsAre Factored In



5

REGION SPEND ON HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION

CITY OFFREDERICKSBURG,

VA

DISTRICTOF COLUMBIA

JEFFERSONCOUNTY, WV

WARRENCOUNTY, VA

PRINCEGEORGE'S

COUNTY, MD

CITY OF ALEXANDRIA,

VA

ARLINGTONCOUNTY, VA

FREDERICK COUNTY, MD

CITY OFMANASSAS, VA

CITY OFFAIRFAX, VA

CLARKECOUNTY, VA

SPOTSYLVANIACOUNTY, VA

CHARLESCOUNTY, MD

CITY OFMANASSAS

PARK, VA

$36,827

$14,041

$22,786

$38,246

$14,816

$23,430

$37,029

$17,090

$19,939

$25,404

$9,987

$15,417

$29,826

$14,763

$15,063

$37,556

$16,677

$20,879

$31,283

$14,997

$16,286 $18,092

$9,461

$27,553

$33,938

$11,157

$22,781$23,826

$13,095

$36,921

$19,585

$12,824

$32,409

$22,100

$16,016

$38,116

$15,384

$20,527

$35,911

$21,946

$10,878

$32,824

$73,941 $80,207 $72,456 $64,288 $80,161 $75,891 $74,019 $87,398 $80,510 $68,124 $53,976 $57,728 $56,823 $46,007

Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology calculations.NOTES: Study area defined by U.S. Office of Budget and Management as the DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area.

See appendix for description of which jurisdictions are located within Central Jurisdictions, Inner Suburbs, Outer Suburbs, and Outer-Ring Jurisdictions..

Six of the seven communities with the lowest combined costs for housing and transportation fall withinone of two categories: central jurisdictions, where transportation costs tend to be low; or outer-ring

jurisdictions, where housing costs tend to be low. As one might expect, residents of the community withthe highest median income — Loudoun County, VA— spend the most on housing and transportation.However, some comparatively wealthy communities— notably, Arlington County, VA, and MontgomeryCounty, MD— fall more in the middle, largely because of low transportation costs. Interestingly, thelowest combined costs for housing and transportation are in the city of Fredericksburg, VA— a town on

the outer edge of the metro area. Housing costs are predictably low, and surprisingly, transportation costsare also low— most likely because Fredericksburg is a compact, walkable community where jobs areplentiful relative to its population size, and residents have access to work, amenities, and services locally.

Community-Level Data ReflectInteraction of Housing Costs,

Transportation Costs,

and Income



6


Many working families in search of affordable housing

move to remote suburbs such as Stafford andFauquier Counties, VA, Frederick County, MD, orwestern Loudoun County, VA. Others live in parts ofthe District of Columbia or inner-suburban locationsnortheast of the city (such as Prince George’s County,MD) where housing is affordable, but access islimited to suburban jobs centers in Fairfax County, VA,or Montgomery County, MD, along the I-66 and I-270corridors. Ironically, efforts to save on housingexpenses have often resulted in higher transportationcosts for families living far from work. Fluctuating gasprices have only exacerbated the situation.

Transportation costs follow a predictable pattern,tending to increase along with commuting distance.Housing costs are more complex. Families living nearsome suburban job centers, such as Fairfax County,VA, for example, often pay a premium for theirdesirable location. In general, though, housing costsdecrease with distance from job centers.

In the Washington, DC, metropolitan area,transportation cost increases begin to exceedhousing savings when families locate roughly 15 to17 miles from employment centers. At that point, aneven larger portion of their household budget isconsumed by both items.

To better understand the burdens that housing and transportation costs impose on families’

budgets, this chart examines the share of families’ incomes that are devoted to housing andtransportation costs as families move farther from job centers.

Higher Transportation Costs OffsetSavings on Housing for FamiliesLiving 15 Miles or More from Work

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Transportation

Housing

% I n

c o m e

Average Commuting Distance (Miles)0 10 20 30

Combined Housingand Transportation

Housing and Transportation Cost Burdens by Commute

R A N D Y S A N T O S



7

0 10

miles

20







Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.Fairfax Co.FauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierFauquierPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George'sPrince George's




West VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest VirginiaWest Virginia

MarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMarylandMaryland











Average Annual Daily TrafficHPMS FHWA 2002 Data (Vehilces per Day)

120,000 or more

60,000 to 120,000

30,000 to 60,000

15,000 to 30,000

Less than 15,000

Average Speed for Jouney to Work

Based on 2000 CTPP DataMore than 45 mph

35 to 45 mph

25 to 35 mph

15 to 25 mph

Less than 15 mph

Employment ClustersAreas with MoreThan 5,000 Employees

Travel Speed and Average Annual Daily Traffic


1Source: Congestion Data for Washington, DC-VA-MD from the2007 Annual Urban Mobility Report , Texas Transportation Institute.

Washington, DC, metro area congestion consistently ranks inthe top five in the nation. Drivers spend an average of 60hours per year sitting in traffic. Region-wide, this adds up toan estimated 127 million hours of wasted time plus nearly91 million gallons of wasted fuel.1 While well aware of trafficproblems, many residents may not be aware that one of theroot causes is the shortage of affordable workforce housingin close-in locations near job centers and public transit stops.

As the map shows, commuters begin their journey towork at a higher rate of speed, but speed drops ascommuters converge on the congested highways and roadsnear workplaces (employment centers with 5,000 or more

jobs are shown in purple). Even in higher incomeneighborhoods near employment centers, heavy traffic resultsin longer commutes. Region-wide, as more householdscommute to distant job centers, clogged and congestedmajor roads are the norm, leading to high rates of energy use,pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. Among the directcosts incurred by local jurisdictions are those for traffic safetyand enforcement and capital improvements.

ShortagesofAffordableWorkforceHContributetoaRegion-wideTrafficN

A v e r a g e H o u r s o f D e l a y p e r D r v i e r

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

2005200420032002200120001999199819971996199519941993199219911990

Today, Washington Drivers Are Stuck in Traffic 60 Hours per Year



Most Workers in the RegionCommute to Work by Car How Workers Commute to Work in the Washington, DC, Metro Area

Percent Taking Percent Taking Percent Percent Working

Private Public Walking from HomeJURISDICTION Vehicle Transport or Biking or Other

CENTRAL JURISDICTIONS: District of Columbia 41.3% 38.5% 14.6% 4.1%Arlington County, VA 62.2% 26.3% 5.6% 5.2%City of Alexandria, VA 72.9% 20.5% 2.6% 3.5%

INNER SUBURBS:City of Fairfax, VA 82.4% 9.6% 5.2% 3.8%Fairfax County, VA 83.4% 9.4% 2.0% 4.6%City of Falls Church, VA 73.1% 17.9% 6.0% 5.6%Montgomery County, MD 76.3% 15.3% 2.4% 5.3%

Prince George’s County, MD 76.8% 17.6% 2.3% 2.0%OUTER SUBURBS: Calvert County, MD 86.9% 2.0% 0.9% 4.0%Charles County, MD 86.7% 3.6% 1.0% 2.9%Frederick County, MD 92.0% 1.7% 2.3% 3.5%Loudoun County, VA 90.7% 2.4% 1.1% 5.3%City of Manassas, VA 90.6% 4.2% 2.5% 1.9%City of Manassas Park, VA 89.8% 3.4% 1.7% 2.3%Prince William County, VA 88.8% 5.1% 1.5% 3.6%Stafford County, VA 92.0% 3.0% 2.2% 2.0%

OUTER-RING JURISDICTIONS Clarke County, VA 87.5% 0.9% 4.0% 6.0%Fauquier County, VA 89.5% 1.5% 2.5% 5.2%City of Fredericksburg, VA 83.2% 4.4% 3.1% 3.5%Jefferson County, WV 86.8% 4.0% 4.5% 5.0%Spotsylvania County, VA 92.5% 2.8% 0.3% 3.1%Warren County, VA 92.8% 1.0% 2.3% 2.5%

ENTIRE METRO AREA 77.5% 13.9% 3.5% 4.0%

Source: 2006 estimates by the Center for Neighborhood Technologybased on 2000 US Census and 2006 American Community Survey data.

More than three-quarters (77.5 percent) ofworkers in the Washington, DC, metropolitanarea commute to work by private vehicle,

although commuter modes of travel vary by jurisdiction. Not surprisingly, in the District ofColumbia, public transit use is substantial, andthe number of people who walk, bike, or takepublic transit exceeds the number who drive.In Arlington, VA, more than one-quarter ofworkers take public transit as do almost one-in-five workers in the cities of Alexandria andFalls Church, VA, and in Prince George’sCounty, MD. While public transit is not asextensively used in Montgomery County, MD,some 15 percent of workers still rely on it toget to work. In the outer suburbs, publictransit often is not an option, which isreflected in the very low usage figures (lessthan 5 percent) for places like the city ofManassas and Loudoun County, VA, andCharles and Calvert counties, MD.

8 M A R K W I L S O N / G E T T Y I M A G E S



9

As was the case elsewhe re in the country,

gas p rices in the metro area climbedrapidly after 2003, rising to nearly $4.00per gallon for the June through Augustperiod in 2008. In tandem with risinggas p rices, commuter rail lines a nd theMetro rail and bus syste ms se rving theregion all reported reco rd increases i nridership. Even though gas p rices havedeclined since the su mmer of 2008,

ridership on the reg ion’s publictranspo rtation systems remains high.

When Gas Prices Spiked,Public Transit RidershipIncreased

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

200820072006200520042003

$1.35

$1.80$2.05

$2.30

$3.00

$3.80

Retail Gas Prices for the Washington, DC, Metro Area Average Retail Price per Gallon, 2003 – 2008

380

385

390

395

400

405

410

415

420

20072006200520042003

560

580

600

620

640

660

680

700

720740

760

20072006200520042003

12,000

12,500

13,000

13,500

14,000

14,500

15,000

15,500

200820072006200520042003

MARC Commuter Train Ridership (millions) Average Annual Riders, 2003 – 2007

VRE Commuter Train Ridership (thousands) Average Annual Daily Riders, 2003 – 2008

Metro Rail and MetroBus Ridership (millions) Annual Passenger Trips, 2003 – 2007

Source: www.GasBuddy.com historical gas price data for Washington, DC, Virginia, and Maryland.

Source: Federal Transit Administration.

WMATA Agency Profiles for Years 2003–2007.

Source: Maryland Transportation Authority. Source: Virginia Railway Express.



0 10

miles

20























Per cent of Income a Hous ehold Ear ning the Ar ea Median Income($78,000/year ) Would Spend on Hous ing in the Was hington, DC, Metr o Ar ea


The data on how much households spend forhousing and transportation tell only part of thestory. Because incomes vary substantially across

jurisdictions, it is important to look atcost burdens — i.e., the share of income householdsspend on these items — and how these burdensconstrain the choices of working families. Bynational standards, the Washington, DC, metroarea is home to high incomes, but also to high

housing costs. A working family earning the areamedian income of $78,000 and looking forhousing has limited options. Housing usually isconsidered affordable if it consumes 30 percentor less of income. The most affordable housing inthe region for this family is located in theNortheast and Southeast sections of the Districtof Columbia and in outlying places where thishousehold would have to “drive ’til it qualifies.”

These distant locations include outer-ring suburbsand jurisdictions such as Jefferson County, WV,and Frederick County, MD, in the north; Warrenand Fauquier counties, VA, in the west;Spotsylvania County, VA, and Charles County, MD,in the south; and parts of Calvert County, MD, inthe east ( see beige areas ). Darker shaded areasdepict places where the median-income familywould have to spend an excessive portion of itsincome on housing.

Housing Choices of Working Familiesin the Region Are Constrainedby a Lack of Affordable Homes

10

H ExpendituresAs a percent of AMI

Less than 20%20 to 30%30 to 45%45 to 48%

48 to 60%60% and greaterInsufficient data

Water

Counties

States

Employment Clusters



0 10

miles

20























Per cent of Income a Hous ehold Ear ning the Ar ea Median Income ($78,000/year )Would Spend on Hous ing + Tr ans por tation in the Was hington, DC, Metr o Ar ea


This map shows the areas affordable to themedian-income family once transportationexpenses are combined with housing expensesfor the true “cost of place.” Of note, many of thecentral city areas in the District of Columbiaremain affordable as do some of the inner-ringsuburban places in Prince George’s County andparts of Montgomery County, MD, and Fairfax

County, VA. Some of these areas are close tolarge employment centers and/or are served bypublic transit, which may keep transportationexpenses down. Even in places within thesecounties where housing costs more than 30percent of income, modest transportation costsappear to be offsetting these higher housingcosts. Now, however, some outlying areas thatwere previously affordable to the median-income

family have become less affordable, or evenunaffordable, territory. Large transportationexpenses in some of the most distant locations— Spotsylvania and Clarke counties, VA, andFrederick County, MD— combine with housingcosts to consume a large portion of the median-income family’s income.See areas that changed from light to dark colors.

Limited Options LeadSome Families to Spenda Large Share of Incomeon Housing and Transportat

11

H+T ExpendituresAs a percent of AMI

Less than 20%20 to 30%30 to 45%45 to 48%

48 to 60%60% and greaterInsufficient data

Water

Counties

States

Employment Clusters



Within each jurisdiction, neighborhoods differ interms of the nature and cost of their housingstock, accessibility to transit, and nearbyamenities. These factors affect the share ofincome families spend on housing andtransportation costs. Cost burdens also reflectdifferences in the incomes of families living inthese communities. Still, some overall patternsare evident. In all but one of the outer-ring

jurisdictions, households face hightransportation cost burdens either alone or incombination with high housing cost burdens.In other jurisdictions, the situation is morediverse. In Loudoun County, VA, for example,

just over half of the households (55 percent)have below-average cost burdens for bothexpenses. By contrast, nearly half thehouseholds in the District of Columbia live inneighborhoods with both high housing and

transportation cost burdens. One-in-four DCresidents have high housing cost burdensalone, while one-in-five have below-averagecost burdens for both expenses. For theregion as a whole, nearly 41 percent ofhouseholds have low cost burdens for bothhousing and transportation. However, 60percent have either high housing cost burdens(13 percent), high transportation cost burdens

(17 percent), or both (29 percent).


% Of Households % Of Households % Of Households

in Low Housing and % Of Households in High in High Housing andLow Transportation in High Housing Transportation High Transportaion

Cost Burden Cost Burden Cost Burden Cost BurdenJURISDICTION Neighborhoods Neighborhoods Neighborhoods Neighborhoods

CENTRAL JURISDICTIONS: District of Columbia 19.8% 24.3% 6.3% 49.6%Arlington County, VA 73.4% 10.6% 4.9% 11.1%City of Alexandria, VA 61.5% 19.1% 6.8% 12.6%

INNER SUBURBS:

City of Fairfax, VA 49.3% 20.7% 8.7% 21.3%Fairfax County, VA 70.2% 13.2% 6.9% 9.8%City of Falls Church, VA 35.9% 56.3% 0.0% 7.8%Montgomery County, MD 48.1% 18.6% 9.5% 23.8%Prince George’s County, MD 30.3% 5.3% 18.8% 45.6%

OUTER SUBURBS: Calvert County, MD 19.0% 1.1% 67.4% 12.6%Charles County, MD 29.7% 1.0% 43.1% 26.2%Frederick County, MD 19.4% 1.6% 59.3% 19.7%Loudoun County, VA 55.1% 21.1% 8.5% 15.3%City of Manassas, VA 27.5% 13.7% 15.2% 43.6%City of Manassas Park, VA 0.0% 31.5% 25.5% 42.9%Prince William County, VA 21.3% 18.6% 14.3% 45.7%Stafford County, VA 14.7% 0.0% 71.6% 13.6%

OUTER-RING JURISDICTIONS Clarke County, VA 0.0% 0.0% 40.4% 59.6%Fauquier County, VA 0.0% 5.2% 44.2% 50.6%City of Fredericksburg, VA 16.3% 0.0% 11.8% 71.9%Jefferson County, WV 0.0% 0.0% 83.8% 16.2%Spotsylvania County, VA 0.0% 0.0% 65.4% 34.6%Warren County, VA 0.0% 0.0% 43.3% 56.7%

Entire Metro Area 40.6% 13.4% 16.9% 29.1%

Neighborhoods Categorized According to Shareof Household Income Spent on Housing and Transportation

When It Comesto Cost Burdens,Jurisdictions Are Diverse

12

M i g th “C t f Pl



13

0 10

miles

20

Prince Williamrince WilliamPrince William

Manassas Park

Manassas

FairfaxairfaxFairfax

Alexandrialexandria

Falls Churchalls ChurchFalls Church

Arlingtonrlington

Fauquierauquier Fairfax Co.airfax Co.Prince George’srince George’s

Fairfax Co.Prince George’s

Fredericksburg

District of Columbiaistrict of Columbia

Alexandria

Arlington

District of Columbia

West Virginia

Virginia

Maryland

CalvertalvertCalvertCharlesharlesCharles

Frederickrederick

MontgomeryontgomeryClarkelarkeClarke

Loudounoudoun

Montgomery

Loudoun

SpotsylvaniapotsylvaniaSpotsylvania

StaffordtaffordStafford

Warrenarren

Jeffersonefferson

Frederick

Jefferson

Warren

Fauquier

H+T QuadsBased on Households Making the MedianIncome in the Census Block Group

Low H - Low T

High H - Low T

Low H - High T

High H - High T

Mapping the “Cost of Placein the Washington, DC, MetThis map provides a new way of understanding theWashington, DC, landscape, classifyingneighborhoods based on the share of incomeresidents spend on housing and transportation costs.These classifications can help policymakers identifypriority areas in need of assistance and tailorappropriate remedies. “High” and “Low” refer tothese cost burdens as compared with regionalaverages. Red areas have both Hig h Housin g andHig h Transportation cost burdens. These areas arefound in the northeast and southeast quadrants ofthe District of Columbia, large portions of northPrince George’s County, MD, and scattered portionsof some of the farthest reaches of the metro area,including Spotsylvania, Fauquier, Warren, and Clarkcounties, VA, and the western-most portions ofLoudoun County, VA. Not surprisingly, the blue areaswithLow Housin g and Hi g h Transportation costburdens are in the outer-suburban ring encircling themetro area. Among them are much of FrederickCounty, MD, and Jefferson County, WV, and many

parts of Fauquier County, VA.Low Housin g andLow Transportation cost burden areas are heavilyclustered in the wealthier parts of Fairfax County, VA,and Montgomery County, MD (white ). Finally, areaswithHig h Housin g and Low Transportation costburdens ( yellow ) are found in suburban areas thatare far from downtown but close to suburban jobcenters. Some of these areas, such as the northwestsection of the District of Columbia, also are wellserved by public transit systems.


Share of Income Spent on Housing and Transportationin the Washington, DC, Metro Area

Prince William

Fairfax

Alexandria

Falls Church

Arlington

Fauquier Fairfax Co.Prince George’s

District of Columbia

Calvert

Charles

Frederick

MontgomeryClarke

Loudoun

Spotsylvania

Stafford

Warren

Jefferson

H+T QuadsBased on Households Making the MedianIncome in the Census Block Group

Low H - Low T

High H - Low T

Low H - High T

High H - High T



14

MOST PARTICIPANTS ACKNOWLED G ED that housing is their bigg estexpense. On average, these wo rking families spend about 45 pe rcent of theirbudget on housing-related expenses including mortgage or rent plus utilities— ahigher proportion than for the region as a whole. While most of the participantswere able to report what they spend on gas, pa rking , and public transit for theircommutes, it was harder for them to pinpoint expenditures on car maintenance orother related transportation expenses. So me participants reported that theiremployers reimbursed the m for part of their commuting costs.

FOR SEVERAL PARTICIPANTS, housing affordability was the primary

consideration when choosing where to live. Some mentioned they werepriced out of ce rtain jurisdictions, narrowing their prospects of whe re to buy

or rent and pushing them farther to the fring es of the region. Othersnoted that affordability and proximity to job centers were importantconsiderations. More than half the participants live within ten miles ofwork, while others live 25 to 50 miles away. Participants repo rtedthat important criteria when sea rching for a home includedneighborhood safety, access to public t ranspo rtation, school quality,areas fo r outdoor rec reation (parks, etc.), and proximity to friends a ndfamily. About half the participants said they would like a shortercommute, but would not necessa rilymove from their current locationand give up other attributes they value.

What DC Metr o Ar ea Wor king Families SayAbout Hous ing and Tr ans por tation in the RegionIn an online, moderated focus group conducted over three days, working familiesshared their experiences, describing their daily commutes, housing and transportationchoices, and concerns about how rising costs and future growth in the region mightaffect quality of life. Participants came from places as central as the District ofColumbia and as far as Dale City, VA, and Frederick, MD. They included a nanny fromLoudoun County, VA, a federal government employee from Severn, MD, a securityguard from Alexandria, VA, and an IT specialist living in Linthicum, MD, among others.Some lived alone, while others were parents with young children, or middle-aged adultswith grown children. Among their observations are the following:

“I’d rather have a small,affordable house thatis close to work(within 1/2 hour).”— Nicolette, 22, Frederick, MD

“All we considered was proximity

to work and price.”— Roberta, 56, Glen Burnie,Anne Arundel County, MD

STOCKBYTE/GETTY IMAGES

P H O T O S

. C O M


PARTICIPANTS USED A MIX OF “I ll d i lf



15

PARTICIPANTS USED A MIX OFTRANSPORTATION MODES for their dailycommute to work. Halfreported they usually droveto work, and over a quarter said they drove to publictransportation and then used t ransit for theremainder of the trip. Therest took public transitonly or work from home. For many, driving was thequickest and most convenient way to commutebecause thei r neighborhoods a re not well serviced

by public transit or because d riving is the most directway to get door to door from home to work. Publictransit users, like Dan, who commutes by train fromPoint of Rocks, MD, into the District, said they en joy

relaxing, sleeping, and thinking before arriving at work. They cited the top three advantages of public transit as: avoidingthe stress of d riving, a way to beat traffic, and a more cost-effective way to get to work.

MOST PARTICIPANTS ACKNOWLED G ED CARPOOLIN G as a way to save o n travel expenses, yet fewchose it as a n option to commute because of pe rceived inconveniences. Fo r example, Jason, 32, of Frede rick,MD, felt that carpooling would make his commute long er because he would have to pick up people at diffe rentpoints along the way.

THE BI GG EST “ G RIPE” AMON G THE G ROUP WAS ABOUTCON G ESTION . Participants said it adds f rustration and unpredictability totheir commute. Among those who d rive to work, like Christina, a 38-year-oldse rvice manager from Laurel, MD,many readjust their schedule to leave ho meearly in the morning or leave work later in the evening to avoid sitting in traffic.Yet, many noted this tactic also takes ti me away from their day that can bespent with family and friends. Seve ral blamed co ngestion as causi ng a greatdeal of stress in their lives, resulting in exhaustion or road rage. A fewparticipants said their long commutes in the ca r have contributed to physical

discomfort, for example, exacerbating preexisting back problems and highblood pressu re. While the idea of telecommuting is appealing to most of thegroup, one-third said that for them it wouldnot be a n option.

THE RAPID INCREASES IN THE PRICE OF G ASOLINE that had takenplace in the months prior to the interviews sparked intense discussio n. Manyreported they have scaled back shoppi ng trips, going to the movies, or dining out

to compensate. Othe rs now plan their travel strategically, linking multiple tasks or errands in one trip to save gas, ormaking arrangements with other families to pick up and drop off their children from schools, spo rts, or other activities.At least for now, however, participant responses su ggested that higher gas prices a re unlikely to prompt an exodus toareas close r to work and other amenities. Most participants chose whe re they live based on their personal or family

needs a nd quality of life, and said they would not necessa rily trade that for the convenience of a quicker commute.Most participants agreed that rising gas prices made the m very aware of their driving habits and lifestyle choices.

“I normally drive myselfand leave extra early

just to beat traffic.”

— Christina, 38, Laurel, MD

“The rise in gascosts surely haschanged mydriving andspending habits.”— Kofi, 33, Alexandria, VA

“It takes forever toget to work.”— Willie, 42,Dale City,VA

S T O C K B Y T E / G E T T Y I M A G E S

KAREN BLEIER/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

R Y A N M C V A Y / G E T T Y I M A G E S

S T O C K B Y T E / G E T T Y I M A G E S



16

Population 2005

JURISDICTION (Thousands of People)

OUTER SUBU RBS 1,201

INNER SUBURBS 2,856

CENTRAL JURISDI CTIONS 931

OUTER-RING JURISDICTIONS 309

Fairfax County, VA 1,042

Loudoun County, VA 271

Montgomery County, MD 952

Prince William County, VA 381

Prince George’s County, MD 829

District of Columbia 588

Spotsylvania County, VA 119

Stafford County, VA 121

Fauquier County, VA 66Charles County, MD 145

Arlington County, VA 203

City of Alexandria, VA 140

Jefferson County, WV 51

Calvert County, MD 90

City of Fredericksburg, VA 22

City of Falls Church, VA 11

Clarke County, VA 14

City of Fairfax, VA 23

City of Manassas, VA 38

City of Manassas Park, VA 14

Frederick County, MD 232

Warren County, VA 36

Entire Metro Area 5,298

Projected Population Growth(Thousands of People)

647215

199

290221

207206

732

140136

9493

6766

433530

19

55

5444

N/AN/A

Source: Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments, EconomicTrends in Metro Washington 2003-2007. Projections using WMCOGRound 7.0 Cooperative Land Use Forecasts, 2006.See appendix for description of which jurisdictions are located withinCentral Jurisdictions, Inner Suburbs, Outer Suburbs,and Outer-Ring Jurisdictions.

Over the next two decades, the Washington, DC, metro area isexpected to add nearly 1.7 million households— an increaseof 34 percent. With many close-in areas already built out andtraffic congestion levels already among the worst in thenation, it will be a major challenge to absorb these residents.

Where will they live? How will they get to work? How willthey afford their housing and transportation costs? This chartshows where growth is expected within the region. Half ofthe growth is expected to occur within the central jurisdictionsand inner suburbs — a sign that demand will be strong inthese close-in locations. Since these locations have little

vacant land, it could be difficult to meet this demand, leadingto further housing price increases. The remaining half of theprojected population growth is expected to occur in the outersuburbs and outer-ring jurisdictions, which currently house

just over one-quarter of the region’s population. This indicatesthat growth as a percentage of current population will be highin these areas, which could have profound impacts on trafficcongestion and quality of life. Notably, the largest populationgrowth in the metro region is expected in the outer suburbs,

where the combined costs for housing and transportation arehighest, posing further challenges to regional affordability.

Housing and Transportation ChallenWill Increase as Population Grows

Projected population growthfor the entire metro area(Thousands of People)for 2005-2030 is 1,793



APPENDIX






19

METHODOLOGYEstimating Housing and Transportation Costsby Neighborhood

The Original Housing + Transportation Cost ModelThe Housing + Transportation Affordability Index was developed by the Ce nter forNeighborhood Technology (CNT) and its collaborative partners, the Ce nter forTransit Oriented Development (CTOD) with support from the Brookings Institution’sMetropolitan Policy Program’s Urban Markets Initiative. This cost index has bee napplied to 52 metro areas in the United States, a nd is unique in that it measu resthe joint transportation and housing affordability at aneighborhood level (see www.htaindex.cnt.org).

Transportation CostsThe transportation costs esti mated in this model and used in this report are morethan the cost of co mmuting to and from work. They also include trips to and fromschool, errands, and other travel that is part of the household daily routine. Themethods for the cost model draw from pee r-reviewed resea rch findings on the

factors that d rive household transportation costs. The model assu mptions,calculations, and methods have bee n reviewed by practitioners at the MetropolitanCouncil in Minneapolis-St. Paul, fellows with the Brookings Institution, andacade mics from the University of Minnesota, Virg inia Polytechnic, Temple University,and elsewhe re, specializing in transportation modeling , household travel behavior,community indicators, and related topics.

Specifically, the transportation cost model incorporates four neighborhoodvariables (residential density, average block size, transit connectivity index, and jobdensity) and four household variables (household income, household size, workersper household, and average journey to work time) as independent variables. Thesevariables are used to p redict, at a neighborhood level (census block group), threedepe ndent variables — auto ownership, auto use, a nd public transit usage — thatdete rmine the total transportation costs.

Housing CostsHousing costs we re dete rmined using the census variables Selected MonthlyOwner Costs (SMOC) for Owners with a Mortgage and Gross Re nt for RentersPaying Cash (GR). SMOC is defined as the su m of payments for mortgages,deeds of t rust, contracts to pu rchase, o r similar debts o n the property (includingpayments for the first mortgage, seco nd mortgage, home equity loans, and other

junior mortgages); real estate taxes; fire, hazard, and flood insurance on theproperty; utilities (electricity,gas, and water and sewe r); and fuels (oil, coal,

kerosene, wood, etc.). It also includes, where app ropriate, the monthlycondominium fees or mobile home costs (installment loan payments, pe rsonalproperty taxes, site rent, registration fees, and license fees).

Gross Re nt (GR) is defined as the co ntract rent plus the estimated ave ragemonthly cost of utilities (electricity,gas, wate r, and sewe r) and fuels (oil, coal,

kerosene, wood, etc.) if these a re paid by the renter (or paid for the renter bysomeone else). Using gross rent eliminates differentials that result from varyingpractices with respect to i ncluding utilities and fuels as pa rt of the rental payment.The estimated costs of utilities and fuels are reported on an annual basis but a reconverted to monthly figures for the tabulations.

The census reports aggr egate values for both of these variables as well as the cou ntof owners and renters used to co mpile the different aggr egates. Therefore, to findan average value for SMOC and GR, the aggr egate is divided by the number ofhouseholds making up the aggr egate value. For the purposes of this study, housi ngcosts a re estimated using onlyrenters paying cash a nd owners paying mortgages.Renters paying with vouchers (e.g ., subsidized housing ) and owners who no longer

have mortgage payments are therefore excluded.

For a full description of the methods used i n the original Housing + TransportationAffordability Index, see: http://htaindex.cnt.org /model_summary.

Updating the Original Model to 2006Input data for the original model are primarily composed of 2000 US Dece nn ialCensus block group data a nd values that were c reated a nd calculated based o nthese data. Si nce the most rece nt data a re for 2000, esti mates for 2006 we recarried out using a recogn ized procedu re called the “constant-share method,”which considered the pe rcent chang e of variables from 2000 to 2006 withi n thePublic Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs). PUMA data for 2006 we re obtained fromthe American Community Survey (ACS) while 2000 US Census block group datawere aggr egated to the sa me PUMA boundaries. Once the pe rcent chang eswere calculated betwee n the two years for each PUMA for each variable, thesevalues were then used as multipliers. Year 2000 values fo r each block groupwithin each PUMA were multiplied by this percent chang e to estimate 2006values at the block group level.

Transportation costs we re updated by applying new cost facto rs to the model’sestimates of vehicle miles traveled. These cost factors were based o n the 2006AAA estimates of costs fo r operating a vehicle, which is estimated to be 15.1cents/mile for fuel ($2.41/gallon), maintenance, and tires.



20

About the Online Focus GroupAn online, moderated “bulletin board” focus group was co nducted from July 29 to July31, 2008. A range of topics related to housing and transportation issues was cove redover the three-day period. Twenty-tworespondents participated. Overall, they:

Included a mix of working adults ages 18–64, with a n equal number of male andfemale participants;

Earned betwee n $48,000 a nd $100,000 i n total household income (or 60 to120 pe rcent of the Washing ton, DC, metro area median income of $78,000);

Lived in a mix of towns and counties throughout the Washing ton, DC,metropolitan area;

Were from a variety of family types, educational backgrounds, and ethnicities; and

Included both auto a nd public transit use rs.

The focus group was co nducted by Harris Interactive, a nationallyrecognized marketresea rch and polling firm. Utilizing a panel maintained by the firm, all participants wererecruited and questioned by professional interviewers experienced in qualitativeresea rch. Participants were paid a s mall honorarium for their participation. Neither theCenter for Housing Policy, which coordinated the effort with Harris Interactive,nor theULI Terwilliger Center were identified to participants as the clie nt.

Definition of Washington, DC,Metropolitan Area Jurisdictions:Washing ton-Arling ton-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV, Metropolitan Statistical Area asdefined by the Office of Budget and Management:http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/bulletins/fy2008/b08-01.pdf pa ge 52

Central Jurisdictions:District of ColumbiaArling ton County, VACity of Alexandria, VA

Inner Suburbs:Montgomery County, MDPrince Geo rge’s County, MDFairfax County, VACity of Fairfax, VACity of Falls Church, VA

Outer Suburbs:Calvert County, MDCharles County, MDFrede rick County, MDLoudoun County, VAPrince William County, VAStafford County, VACity of Manassas, VACity of Manassas Pa rk, VA

Outer-RingJurisdictions:Clarke County, VAFauquier County, VASpotsylvania County, VAWarren County, VACity of Frede ricksburg , VAJefferson County, W V

C H I P S O M O D E V I L L A / G E T T Y I M A G E S



1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NWSuite 500 WestWashington, D.C. 20007(202) 624-7000

www.uli.org/TerwilligerCenter

Terwilliger Center for Workforce Housing

Housing and TransportationCost Calculator AvailableThe ULI Terwilliger Center for WorkforceHousing is pleased to announce itsnew housing and transportation costcalculator, which provides consumerswith up-to-date Washington, DC, metroarea cost data that they can use to makeinformed housing decisions. To accessthe calculator, go to www.uli.org/ costcalculator .

Documents

Beltway Burden