Oak Park leads in study that shows it 
pays to live near public transportation

By ERIC LINDEN

A new study shows that it literally pays to live near public
transportation--and no suburban community benefits more than Oak Park.

With their locations so near to public transportation lines, Oak Park
and Forest Park both rank in the top 10 Chicago suburbs for lowest
yearly average auto costs, according ot the Center for Neighborhood
Technology.

Oak Park led the list of 10 suburbs that the CNT, a metropolitan public
policy organization, said "were a number of suburban communities that
are extremely accessible and convenient (to public transportation
alternatives to driving), and therefore have low auto costs."

The idea behind the study is to show that living near mass transit like
the CTA el lines and Metra commuter rail lines can give residents more
disposable income. The study also showed that residents of Chicago save
more on auto costs because of the plentiful mass transit and other
community amenities available in the city.

CNT said Oak Park residents spend an average of $5,232 per year on auto
costs and Forest Park motorists spend $5,727--both below the average for
suburban communities. Nearby Maywood, which is west of Forest Park and
south and west of River Forest, also ranked in the top 10 for low
driving costs with yearly spending of $5,740, as did Elmwood Park to the
north of River Forest with $5,618, according to CNT.

The credit goes to the CTA's Lake Street leg of the Green Line, which
runs through Oak Park and borders Forest Park; the CTA's Congress leg of
the Blue Line, which runs through Forest Park and Oak Park; the Metra
line that runs through Oak Park and River Forest; and the Metra line
that runs through Elmwood Park north of River Forest and Chicago's
Galewood neighborhood to the north of Oak Park.

The top 10 suburbs and their average auto costs were as follows. CNT
said residents of these communities can increase their disposable income
most by living in these 10 suburbs.
 

Suburb        Average Auto Cost
Oak Park               $5,232
Evanston               $5,407
Cicero                   $5,443
Berwyn                  $5,500
Harwood Heights   $5,572
Elmwood Park       $5,618
Highwood              $5,692
Forest Park            $5,727
Blue Island             $5,738
Maywood              $5,740

The ranking was done for a CNT study that resulted in a factor called
Location Efficient Mortgage (LEM), which is a method of capturing the
low transportation costs for families living in convenient places. CNT
said the study is the first mortgage product that factors in how much a
family would spend on driving in their new location.

So for example in the survey, the median Chicago-area household--with an
annual income of $43,000 and 2.6 people-- would spend $5,232 in annual
auto costs living in Oak Park, but $7,100 in northwest suburban Hoffman
Estates. Thus it's cheaper to live in Oak Park, Forest Park and the
other ranked suburbs, among others, than "an outer-ring suburb" like far
northwest Hoffman Estates.

By increasing a household's purchasing power, the LEM helps people to
buy in convenient communities where they can keep their driving minimal,
instead of having to move to transit-inaccessible outer ring suburbs
where homes are cheaper but the cost of driving may seriously cut into
new homeowners' disposable income.

CNT said evidence shows that households living in the Chicago
metropolitan area spend an average of $5,436 a year on transportation.
Chicago residents saved more on auto costs, but Oak Park's total auto
costs were the lowest expenditures and other suburbs spend not only more
than Oak Park but some far more.

The Chicago-area analysis shows that households in places with few
transportation options--in other words, where destinations are far apart
and reachable only by car--spend as much as two times more on
transportation than households living in places with transit service,
sidewalks, local landmarks within walking distance and other
transportation-related amenities.

The transportation savings in the study also are based on a community's
characteristics and not solely transit access. Local development,
convenient amenities such as schools and stores and and neighborhoods
where walking in convenient also were cited.

"We call such communities location efficient," CNT's study said,
"Residents can easily get from one place to another without being
dependent on a car, and can find what they need close to home."

The CNT study also includes this lengthy statement of explanation.

"Where you live and how you get around is not just a lifestyle choice,
it is a financial decision. However, consumers probably overlook the
significance of transportation costs when they make choices. Many are
attracted by lower home prices in sprawling subdivisions but may not
include the costs of increased driving and car ownership in the price of
their new home," CNT said. "Transportation is the second largest use of
disposable income, second only to housing in the Chicago area; it far
surpasses spending for food, health care or education. Yet it is
commonly dismissed as a necessary expense, as if nothing can be done to
reduce it. If families were to pay as much attention to `location,
location, location' when thinking through their transportation budget as
they do in their housing decisions, they would be able to reap
significant savings and be able to invest in more valuable assets such
as health, education, and a home."