We’ve been talking about the merits of congestion pricing for as long as I’ve been writing this blog. But it remains politically unpopular, despite the overwhelming evidence that it consistently does what it’s supposed to do: it reduces congestion, shortens commute times, improves air quality, and raises money for alternative modes of transport, among other things. 

The status quo bias is strong, but right now we have an opportunity. Self-driving cars are in the midst of shifting the mobility landscape, and there’s a growing belief that (1) roads are going to need to be more accurately priced to deal with the surge in demand, and (2) this is a moment in time that grants us the opportunity to do it. Here’s a recent tweet by Chris Spoke of Toronto Standard that makes this point and that I agree with.

The basic idea behind point number two is that many voters don’t like the idea of a congestion charge for themselves, but will probably mind a charge on robot cars a lot less — both because they are robot cars and because there are relatively few of them on the road today. However, at some point, robot cars will form the majority of vehicles on the road, so now would be a good time to establish new practices.

What do you think?

Cover photo by Minku Kang on Unsplash

One of the reasons why we are seeing more multiplexes in Toronto (smaller infill buildings with less than seven homes) is that the city has waived development charges and parkland dedication fees on this scale of new housing.

This has helped enormously; without these changes, we'd be seeing far fewer of these housing projects being built.

But here's the odd thing about this exemption: if you build even one more home in the same building, the project is now subject to development charges on all of the homes (minus any credits you might receive for existing homes on the site).

Adding a seventh unit shouldn't suddenly trigger hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees for the first six. This makes zero sense:

• It creates a disincentive to build incrementally more homes on sites that can accommodate them.

• It creates a bias toward multiplexes (also known as "houseplexes") and away from apartments. The housing type shouldn't matter. We're talking about homes.

• It perpetuates the "missing middle" problem. Build small or build big enough to shoulder the additional costs and regulatory burden.

If we're waiving DCs on sixplexes, why not at least waive them for the first six homes on every site? Better yet, waive them on even more homes. This is just one specific example of the hurdles I was talking about yesterday.

Note: My understanding is that the City of Toronto is currently looking to remove this DC cliff and implement a universal first-six-free rule.

Cover photo by Jason Ng on Unsplash

We’ve been talking about the merits of congestion pricing for as long as I’ve been writing this blog. But it remains politically unpopular, despite the overwhelming evidence that it consistently does what it’s supposed to do: it reduces congestion, shortens commute times, improves air quality, and raises money for alternative modes of transport, among other things. 

The status quo bias is strong, but right now we have an opportunity. Self-driving cars are in the midst of shifting the mobility landscape, and there’s a growing belief that (1) roads are going to need to be more accurately priced to deal with the surge in demand, and (2) this is a moment in time that grants us the opportunity to do it. Here’s a recent tweet by Chris Spoke of Toronto Standard that makes this point and that I agree with.

The basic idea behind point number two is that many voters don’t like the idea of a congestion charge for themselves, but will probably mind a charge on robot cars a lot less — both because they are robot cars and because there are relatively few of them on the road today. However, at some point, robot cars will form the majority of vehicles on the road, so now would be a good time to establish new practices.

What do you think?

Cover photo by Minku Kang on Unsplash

One of the reasons why we are seeing more multiplexes in Toronto (smaller infill buildings with less than seven homes) is that the city has waived development charges and parkland dedication fees on this scale of new housing.

This has helped enormously; without these changes, we'd be seeing far fewer of these housing projects being built.

But here's the odd thing about this exemption: if you build even one more home in the same building, the project is now subject to development charges on all of the homes (minus any credits you might receive for existing homes on the site).

Adding a seventh unit shouldn't suddenly trigger hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees for the first six. This makes zero sense:

• It creates a disincentive to build incrementally more homes on sites that can accommodate them.

• It creates a bias toward multiplexes (also known as "houseplexes") and away from apartments. The housing type shouldn't matter. We're talking about homes.

• It perpetuates the "missing middle" problem. Build small or build big enough to shoulder the additional costs and regulatory burden.

If we're waiving DCs on sixplexes, why not at least waive them for the first six homes on every site? Better yet, waive them on even more homes. This is just one specific example of the hurdles I was talking about yesterday.

Note: My understanding is that the City of Toronto is currently looking to remove this DC cliff and implement a universal first-six-free rule.

Cover photo by Jason Ng on Unsplash