The good news is that, generally, the places most affordable are the places that have public transportation. Affordability is gained through density (not only in direct housing concerns, but also things like access to jobs), and density is also conducive to public transpiration.

The places where public transportation isn't normally found are the places where the average Joe wouldn't have a hope in hell of being able to afford to live there (affluent suburbs, rural areas, etc.) anyway.

▲

graemep 39 minutes ago | parent [-]

Not my experience at all. The more expensive the better the public transport where I have lived in the UK. London at the top end for both (and central a lot more than suburban). Small town the cheapest, especially the edges that are near rural.

	▲	9rx 25 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		~13% of the UK population, and growing, lives in London. Why would an unaffordable place be home to such a large portion of the population? It wouldn't. These cities become large — and continue to grow — because they are most affordable in the typical case. Small towns often have a lower sticker price, but the low sticker price is low for reason: Because it is much less affordable. Everyone would be moving there if it were more affordable. Humans love to chase a good deal. After all, even London itself was just a small town, even rural, at one time, but people moved there because it was a better deal and thus the city you know today was born. Of course, there are always outliers. Perhaps you are one of them. The earlier comment was clear about 'generally'.