Metropolitan areas with more compact growth, a wide mix of land uses and abundant transportation options that date before the advent of cars are typically less expensive places to live when you combine housing and transportation costs.

That is the conclusion reached by Robert Dunphy, senior resident transportation fellow for the Urban Land Institute.

Dunphy studied consumer expenses in 28 metropolitan areas during 2001 collected by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and released earlier this year.

Housing accounted for one-third of spending by U.S. households in 2001, twice the amount spent in 1972, which reflects higher homeownership rates and bigger and more expensive houses.

However, transportation costs ranked second, at 19 percent of the typical household budget. This is more than food and clothing combined.

The typical household spent more than $7,600 annually on transportation, of which $7,200 was for buying and maintaining cars and trucks. Only $400 was typically spent on public transportation, which included expenditures for air fares.

Together, housing and transportation costs accounted for 52 percent of annual consumer expenditures nationwide, with lower-income households spending an average of 53 percent and higher-income households spending an average of 49 percent.

The differences in metro area expenditures reflected local variations in costs for housing and transportation, as well as area incomes.

"The price of location works two ways," Dunphy said. "One way to cope with the high cost of housing is by moving to a lower-cost location and commuting. Another way is to bite the bullet, pay the cost of a prime location, and enjoy the savings in time and transportation costs conferred by being closer to work and entertainment and having travel options. Urban housing markets are composed of both kinds of consumers."

The top ten markets in which housing accounted for the highest share of household spending were: Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Atlanta, Washington, New York, Miami, Boston, Chicago and Denver, with the portion ranging from 36 percent in Denver to nearly 38 percent in Los Angeles.

Markets in which housing accounted for the lowest share of household spending -- between 29 and 32 percent -- were St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Houston, Dallas, Tampa, Anchorage, and Honolulu.

The survey showed nine metro areas in which transportation spending accounted for at least 19 percent of household spending. Tampa, with a share of 25 percent, led the list for cities with high transportation costs, followed by Phoenix, Dallas, San Diego, Cleveland, Houston, Seattle, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and St. Louis.

Cities rating on the lower end for transportation costs -- 17 percent or less of household spending -- were New York, Boston, Washington, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Portland, Ore., Honolulu and Atlanta.

"Except for Atlanta, the rest … are generally more compact places where there are many choices of transportation, and for those choosing to drive, most trips are short," Dunphy said.

The most expensive markets, in terms of combined spending on housing and transportation were San Diego, with a share of 58 percent; Tampa, 56 percent; Los Angeles, 55.7 percent; Miami, 55.1 percent; Denver, 54.9 percent; Atlanta, 54.7 percent; Phoenix, 54.3 percent; San Francisco, 54.1 percent; and Cleveland, 54.0 percent.

New York and Washington are prime examples of trading high housing costs for affordable transportation, moving those areas from the high housing cost category to the middle-cost markets for combined housing/transportation costs, Dunphy said.

However, the commuting or "drive to qualify" option characterizes Houston and Dallas, both of which rank high for transportation costs but relatively low for housing costs, he said.

The study documents the pocketbook benefits of smart growth. The large cities with concentrated growth, mixed-use development and transportation options are places where high housing costs are somewhat offset by more affordable transportation, helping to bring down the combined location costs, Dunphy said.

"Moreover, homeowners in these higher-priced housing markets have the advantage of building wealth through home equity, rather than buying cars, which only depreciate."

There are several ways to reduce combined location costs:

More affordable housing in accessible locations -- using financial incentives, tax advantages, special mortgage products and other programs to create more affordable housing opportunities in close-in locations.

Pay at the pump insurance, which includes the cost of car insurance in the price of gasoline, making drivers more cognizant of their total driving costs and possibly encouraging them to economize by driving less.

Gap transportation, which reduces the need for two cars by increasing the availability of car sharing services for occasional driving needs.

Increasing the cost of "drive to qualify," by having road extensions into new suburbs paid by users.