In this last one, he specifically talks about things like price gouging (starting with the grocery industry) and apartment rent controls. Each is worth a full read when you have the time, but here I'll leave you all with a few city building-related thoughts.
In this last one, he specifically talks about things like price gouging (starting with the grocery industry) and apartment rent controls. Each is worth a full read when you have the time, but here I'll leave you all with a few city building-related thoughts.
Marks describes economics as the study of choice. And within these choices, there are many complicated moving pieces and second-order consequences. Take, for example, rent control in New York City. What rent control does is stop the free market from being able to freely set rents. The result:
A person in favor of this arrangement would argue that it maintains affordability and diversity. What it means in purely economic terms is that some people who couldn’t afford to live in New York City if rents were set by free-market forces are able to live there if they’re lucky enough to secure an apartment with regulated rent. But other people who would like to live in New York City and can afford higher rents can’t do so because there are no apartments for them. And lastly, landlords that have apartments that are somehow unregulated can command higher rents than would be the case if additions to the supply of apartments weren’t being discouraged. It’s a matter of personal philosophy whether this is good or bad. But clearly, the laws of economics and the actions of free markets aren’t at work in New York City. Someone in government is making the decisions.
Much like inclusionary zoning in the case of new housing, the tradeoffs with regulated rents are that you get (1) less overall housing supply and (2) more expensive prices for the people that can pay market rents.
You could argue, as Marks suggests, that these are acceptable outcomes; but regardless of your opinion, there are real consequences to this policy decision. There's no such thing as a "free lunch" in economics, and consequently there's no such thing as no-cost affordable housing. The question is: Who pays?
Going back to the topic of traffic congestion from yesterday's post, Toronto's general reluctance to implement any form of road or congestion pricing is also an economic choice. We have priced our roads so cheaply that demand is always going to outstrip supply. And this is expected. What we are experiencing today is a natural market outcome.
Targeting bike lanes as part of the problem is meant to counter this by increasing road supply. Less bike lanes means more space for cars, right? But the second-order consequence of this choice is that you push people off their bikes (which take up less road space) and into cars (which take up more road space). So demand is also likely to increase.
The stark reality of solving traffic congestion is that it will require greater change. It will mean fewer people driving, more people taking transit and biking, and the people who do continue to drive will have to pay more for it.
Of course, this is not what any politician wants to talk about. As Marks says: "In the world of politics, there can be limitless benefits and something for everyone. But in economics, there are only tradeoffs." The tradeoff we have decided to make is cheap roads in exchange for crippling traffic congestion.
People in Toronto are deeply and rightly frustrated about our traffic. We have truly world-class congestion. But here's the thing, the way we're going about solving this problem is all wrong.
Transportation staff seem to believe that congestion charges would not reduce or deter traffic from coming into Toronto. Never mind all the global precedents, never mind that we have the tolled 407 highway to look to, and never mind that economics tells us that when the price of something increases, the quantity demanded decreases.
Instead, we seem to think that we can solve this problem with fewer bike lanes, improved traffic management, and better policing, including higher fines for disobedience. (Interestingly enough, higher fines are supposed to deter people, but congestion charges won't do the same. I'm confused.)
None of this will fix the mess we're in.
This is a case of politics over data and experience. Identify something that people are pissed off about, and then create the illusion that you're doing something to fix it. Good politics. But the reality is that this problem is much trickier to solve. It will require vision and meaningful change. That's a much tougher sell.
Think of this way. Can you identity a large car-oriented global city with millions of people that doesn't have a traffic congestion problem? Even the Katy Freeway in Houston, which counts as many as 26 total lanes, has a congestion problem. And the last time I checked, it didn't have any bike lanes.
Now let's look at the largest city region in the world -- Tokyo. The city proper has about 14 million people and the broader region has about 41 million. This is the entire population of Canada in one city region, and yet it's generally viewed as being one of the most well-run and efficient cities in the world. How do they do it?
Here are the modal splits within Tokyo's 23 wards (2018 data):
36% public transport (rail and bus)
27% passenger cars
23% walking
14% bicycles and motorcycles
Now compare this to the splits in Toronto's census metropolitan area (2021 census data):
76% passenger cars
16% public transport
5% walking
1% bicycles
2% other
Of course, if we were to look at the modal splits within the core of the city they would look quite different and much closer to Tokyo's numbers. This is why it can be so hard to achieve consensus on many city building issues -- we are quite literally a divided and different kind of city.
In the end, this is the root cause of our traffic problem. The vast majority of people in this city region drive. And they are not to be blamed. It's because we've designed this to be the only practical option.
But if we're serious about solving congestion, it's going to require some bold changes. It's going to require reducing this 76% figure. We can fool ourselves into thinking that better construction coordination, fewer bike lanes, and higher fines will somehow solve this enormous and deep-rooted problem, but the inconvenient truth is that they won't.
What we need are real solutions. Is anyone going to take the lead?
Toronto has been making great progress when it comes to allowing more housing in its low-rise neighborhoods. We now allow laneway suites, garden suites, multiplexes, and soon we'll allow 6-storey apartments. But interestingly enough, there is one small part of the city that is looking to regress. This past summer, council asked planning staff to bring forward a zoning by-law amendment to remove garden suite permissions for some of the properties backing onto Craven Road, near Danforth and Coxwell.
Here's a community consultation flyer that went out to residents and that shows the affected properties:
Marks describes economics as the study of choice. And within these choices, there are many complicated moving pieces and second-order consequences. Take, for example, rent control in New York City. What rent control does is stop the free market from being able to freely set rents. The result:
A person in favor of this arrangement would argue that it maintains affordability and diversity. What it means in purely economic terms is that some people who couldn’t afford to live in New York City if rents were set by free-market forces are able to live there if they’re lucky enough to secure an apartment with regulated rent. But other people who would like to live in New York City and can afford higher rents can’t do so because there are no apartments for them. And lastly, landlords that have apartments that are somehow unregulated can command higher rents than would be the case if additions to the supply of apartments weren’t being discouraged. It’s a matter of personal philosophy whether this is good or bad. But clearly, the laws of economics and the actions of free markets aren’t at work in New York City. Someone in government is making the decisions.
Much like inclusionary zoning in the case of new housing, the tradeoffs with regulated rents are that you get (1) less overall housing supply and (2) more expensive prices for the people that can pay market rents.
You could argue, as Marks suggests, that these are acceptable outcomes; but regardless of your opinion, there are real consequences to this policy decision. There's no such thing as a "free lunch" in economics, and consequently there's no such thing as no-cost affordable housing. The question is: Who pays?
Going back to the topic of traffic congestion from yesterday's post, Toronto's general reluctance to implement any form of road or congestion pricing is also an economic choice. We have priced our roads so cheaply that demand is always going to outstrip supply. And this is expected. What we are experiencing today is a natural market outcome.
Targeting bike lanes as part of the problem is meant to counter this by increasing road supply. Less bike lanes means more space for cars, right? But the second-order consequence of this choice is that you push people off their bikes (which take up less road space) and into cars (which take up more road space). So demand is also likely to increase.
The stark reality of solving traffic congestion is that it will require greater change. It will mean fewer people driving, more people taking transit and biking, and the people who do continue to drive will have to pay more for it.
Of course, this is not what any politician wants to talk about. As Marks says: "In the world of politics, there can be limitless benefits and something for everyone. But in economics, there are only tradeoffs." The tradeoff we have decided to make is cheap roads in exchange for crippling traffic congestion.
People in Toronto are deeply and rightly frustrated about our traffic. We have truly world-class congestion. But here's the thing, the way we're going about solving this problem is all wrong.
Transportation staff seem to believe that congestion charges would not reduce or deter traffic from coming into Toronto. Never mind all the global precedents, never mind that we have the tolled 407 highway to look to, and never mind that economics tells us that when the price of something increases, the quantity demanded decreases.
Instead, we seem to think that we can solve this problem with fewer bike lanes, improved traffic management, and better policing, including higher fines for disobedience. (Interestingly enough, higher fines are supposed to deter people, but congestion charges won't do the same. I'm confused.)
None of this will fix the mess we're in.
This is a case of politics over data and experience. Identify something that people are pissed off about, and then create the illusion that you're doing something to fix it. Good politics. But the reality is that this problem is much trickier to solve. It will require vision and meaningful change. That's a much tougher sell.
Think of this way. Can you identity a large car-oriented global city with millions of people that doesn't have a traffic congestion problem? Even the Katy Freeway in Houston, which counts as many as 26 total lanes, has a congestion problem. And the last time I checked, it didn't have any bike lanes.
Now let's look at the largest city region in the world -- Tokyo. The city proper has about 14 million people and the broader region has about 41 million. This is the entire population of Canada in one city region, and yet it's generally viewed as being one of the most well-run and efficient cities in the world. How do they do it?
Here are the modal splits within Tokyo's 23 wards (2018 data):
36% public transport (rail and bus)
27% passenger cars
23% walking
14% bicycles and motorcycles
Now compare this to the splits in Toronto's census metropolitan area (2021 census data):
76% passenger cars
16% public transport
5% walking
1% bicycles
2% other
Of course, if we were to look at the modal splits within the core of the city they would look quite different and much closer to Tokyo's numbers. This is why it can be so hard to achieve consensus on many city building issues -- we are quite literally a divided and different kind of city.
In the end, this is the root cause of our traffic problem. The vast majority of people in this city region drive. And they are not to be blamed. It's because we've designed this to be the only practical option.
But if we're serious about solving congestion, it's going to require some bold changes. It's going to require reducing this 76% figure. We can fool ourselves into thinking that better construction coordination, fewer bike lanes, and higher fines will somehow solve this enormous and deep-rooted problem, but the inconvenient truth is that they won't.
What we need are real solutions. Is anyone going to take the lead?
Toronto has been making great progress when it comes to allowing more housing in its low-rise neighborhoods. We now allow laneway suites, garden suites, multiplexes, and soon we'll allow 6-storey apartments. But interestingly enough, there is one small part of the city that is looking to regress. This past summer, council asked planning staff to bring forward a zoning by-law amendment to remove garden suite permissions for some of the properties backing onto Craven Road, near Danforth and Coxwell.
Here's a community consultation flyer that went out to residents and that shows the affected properties:
We've spoken about Craven Road before. It's a relatively odd street with a unique history. Its most obvious characteristic is that it's a kind of single-sided street. For the most part, there are homes on the east side of the street, but no homes on the west side. On the non-home side there is typically a garage, or the longest municipally-owned fence in the city. Here's some of the backstory on Craven Road's infamous fence (which occurs on a stretch further south), and below is what the study area in question looks like today:
So why remove the garden suite permissions here? The answer is to block housing. The people who live on Craven Road like it the way it is and don't want anyone to build new housing on the other side of the street. What's interesting about this is that it roughly mirrors what happened over a century ago. We couldn't figure out how to broker a deal between two adjacent streets and so we just said "screw it, let's build a really really long fence and call it a day."
Today we're saying, "yeah, we really need more housing in the city, but I dunno, somebody might get upset here." There is nothing sacrosanct about the old garages, or the fence, that line the west side of Craven. It is a street, proximate to a major subway station, that is missing homes on one entire side. It's low hanging fruit for infill housing. In fact, there's an easy argument to be made that garden suites aren't nearly enough density for a location like this. We should be encouraging a lot more.
But this is just my opinion. If you'd like to share yours, the City of Toronto is hosting a community meeting this week on September 19, 2024 from 7 - 830 PM. To participate, register here.
We've spoken about Craven Road before. It's a relatively odd street with a unique history. Its most obvious characteristic is that it's a kind of single-sided street. For the most part, there are homes on the east side of the street, but no homes on the west side. On the non-home side there is typically a garage, or the longest municipally-owned fence in the city. Here's some of the backstory on Craven Road's infamous fence (which occurs on a stretch further south), and below is what the study area in question looks like today:
So why remove the garden suite permissions here? The answer is to block housing. The people who live on Craven Road like it the way it is and don't want anyone to build new housing on the other side of the street. What's interesting about this is that it roughly mirrors what happened over a century ago. We couldn't figure out how to broker a deal between two adjacent streets and so we just said "screw it, let's build a really really long fence and call it a day."
Today we're saying, "yeah, we really need more housing in the city, but I dunno, somebody might get upset here." There is nothing sacrosanct about the old garages, or the fence, that line the west side of Craven. It is a street, proximate to a major subway station, that is missing homes on one entire side. It's low hanging fruit for infill housing. In fact, there's an easy argument to be made that garden suites aren't nearly enough density for a location like this. We should be encouraging a lot more.
But this is just my opinion. If you'd like to share yours, the City of Toronto is hosting a community meeting this week on September 19, 2024 from 7 - 830 PM. To participate, register here.
