Daily insights for city builders, delivered every morning at 6 AM ET. I’m Brandon Donnelly — a Toronto-based real estate developer and founder of Globizen. I’ve been writing here since 2013.
Over the weekend, we spoke about using road pricing as a way to correct supply and demand imbalances on city roads and highways. Because it turns out that when roads, or anything else for that matter, are free, people tend to use them a lot more. It’s why when you suddenly submeter utilities in an apartment building, consumption tends to drop off significantly. Now it’s no longer “free”.
It’s for this exact reason that Venice — a city that has been complaining about too many tourists for many years — has decided to implement a new entrance fee. Starting spring 2024, day trippers will have to pay €5 to enter the “old city” of Venice.
If you own a home there, you’re exempt because presumably you’re already paying property taxes. And if you’re staying overnight, you’re also exempt, because presumably you’re going to be paying whatever hotel taxes the city levies. But if you’re just coming in for the day, you’re going to need to pay.
Now, I don’t know if €5, structured in this way, is going to fully address the city’s overtourism concerns. Maybe it needs to be a lot more. But it is a step in the right direction. If you have too much demand for a certain amount of supply, you can generally lower demand by increasing the price. Perhaps the only exception is a Birkin bag. Apparently you can charge any price for these.
For next year’s budget (2024), the City of Toronto is projecting a $1.5 – $1.7 billion budget shortfall. And over the next 10 years, this shortfall is expected to grow to nearly $47 billion if changes aren’t made. This is according to a recent report prepared by Ernst & Young and Strategy Corp. So right now, all of this is being looked at and debated by Council.
Where are we going to get this money?
One persistent debate is whether the city actually has a revenue problem, or whether it’s simply an expense/spending problem. I can’t say that I’ve scrutinized the city’s expenses at any length, so I’m not going to get into that level of detail today. For this post, I’d like to focus on two specific things. The first is property taxes.
Here is a figure, from the report, showing residential property tax rates across southern Ontario:
What you will see is that Toronto has the lowest rate of the 35 municipalities that they looked at. Now obviously there are some nuances to consider. The average home price in Toronto is higher than it is in, say, Sault St. Marie. Toronto also has a large commercial property tax base. But even still, historically speaking, Toronto has tended to increase its residential property taxes at or below the rate of inflation.
This is a problem. And it is the exact same problem that we have talked about on this blog in regards to residential rent controls. If you own an apartment building where the rents are capped and your expenses are, therefore, growing faster than your revenue, you are (1) highly incentivized not to invest in the apartment (you can’t afford to) and (2) eventually going to hit a financial wall.
Sound familiar? As far as I can tell, that is, at least partially, what is happening here.
Secondly, one of the first things that I did when I opened the report was run a search for “road tolls” and “congestion charges”. Regular readers of this blog will know that this is something I feel strongly about. Here’s what I found:
In 2017, when the City considered implementation of tolls for the Gardiner and the DVP, staff estimated that a $2-per-trip toll would generate $5.6 billion in 10 years. The province has refused several requests to consider these options, with the Minister of Transportation rejecting any discussion of uploading or tolling as recently as December 2022.
This is also a problem. One of the general rules with taxes is that you should ideally tax the things you want less of. Hmm. So why not tax traffic congestion? There is no question that it works. There’s lots of evidence from all around the world. We just lack the political will to actually do it. Instead, we pay lip service with solutions that don’t work.
At the same time, if we were to actually implement road pricing, I don’t believe that a flat toll is the way to go. $2 also seems low. The best practice is dynamic road pricing that fluctuates based on actual congestion levels. Meaning, if you’re driving at 5am, expect a low rate. And if you’re driving at 5pm, expect a high rate.
Virtually overnight, we know this would do at least three things: (1) it would reduce/eliminate traffic congestion (congestion levels would become a function of pricing); (2) it would reduce overall carbon emissions in the city; and (3) it would take a meaningful chunk out of this $47 billion budget shortfall.
Among developed cities, Tokyo has the lowest car use in the world. About 12% of trips are completed with a car, whereas 17% of trips are done with a bicycle. Most people walk and/or take transit. Tokyo has the most-used public transit system in the world — about 30 million people each day.
Car ownership across Japan is about 590 vehicles per 1,000 people. This is comparable to many European countries. In the US, it’s about 800 vehicles per 1,000. However, this figure drops in Tokyo. Here, the average is about 0.32 cars per household, which was interesting to see because most new housing projects in downtown Toronto have parking ratios that are much lower than even this figure.
The average size of a home in Tokyo is 65.9 square meters of usable area. By comparison, the average size of a home in London is 80 square meters. But given that according to Knowles, the average household size in London is 2.7 people, whereas it’s 1.95 in Tokyo. So per capita, Tokyoites actually have more space than Londoners.
35% of streets in Japan are not wide enough to fit a car. If you add in streets that are wide enough to fit a car but not wide enough that a car could stop and not entirely block traffic, this figure jumps to 86%. This to me is a massively significant statistic, because if you want people to walk places you need small streets.
95% of streets in Japan do not allow any sort of street parking — day or night.
The average Japanese car owner drives around 6,000 kilometers per year. This is about a third of what the average American does. In my case, it looks like I have averaged about 8,868 kilometers per year over the last 5 years. Though a big chunk of my kilometers would be from longer one-off snowboarding trips. In other words, I don’t drive all that often in the city.
Japan has some of the most expensive road tolls/prices in the world. Meaning, Japan does not actively subsidize driving and instead just charges drivers accordingly. Apparently the average is about 3,000 yen per 100 kilometers, which is about CA$30 per 100 kilometers.
In addition to not subsidizing cars, Tokyo is also one of the few cities in the world where their public transit does not need to be subsidized. A big part of this has to do with high ridership, but the other important part is that its transit authorities also develop real estate. Shockingly, this means that it tends not to build standalone and single-storey transit stations (ahem, I’m looking at you Crosstown LRT). Instead, they build lots of density where it always belongs: on top of transit.
This won’t come as a surprise to many of you. But I recently attended a community meeting where someone was advocating for adding new lanes to a particular road. Their argument was that traffic congestion is forcing too many cars to sit needlessly idle and that that is bad for the environment. The proposed solution of adding new lanes would get traffic moving, reduce idling pollution, and therefore be overall better for the environment.
I disagree entirely.
But transportation planning seems to be one of those things that many people feel is intuitive. It’s one of those things where people feel confident saying, “I know how to fix this. We just need to do this.” But the reality is that cities are incredibly complex organisms and it’s not always obvious what should be done. So I think that a big part of making our cities better comes down to having much better data. And that’s why I’m very intrigued by the work that startup Viva, and others, are doing.
Viva uses small street-light mounted cameras and machine learning to track urban mobility (see image above). Currently they track 9 different modes: pedestrian, bicycle, e-scooter, motorcycle, car, van, light truck, semi-truck, and bus. And after they collect this data, the relevant information is extracted and then everything else is deleted for privacy reasons. There are also plans to make this data openly available to the public so that people can use it and/or build on top of it.
Obviously this is still going to raise privacy concerns and that is something that will need to be carefully addressed. But I do think that the data from a platform like this is going to be invaluable for cities. Among many other things, it will help us to better allocate space among the various modes and design much safer streets. Hopefully it can also help to take some of the politics out of these sorts of decisions: “Here’s the data. Take a look.”
Viva currently has 1,000 sensors already installed in London (where they are being used to evaluate the impacts of congestion pricing), and about half a dozen in New York. So it’ll be interesting to see what this leads to. And who knows, maybe it will actually turn us all into amateur transportation planners. We’ll certainly have access to a lot more data.
Let’s assume that you’re Mayor of your city and that, for whatever reason, you have no need to pander to voters. You’re a benevolent dictator. You can do whatever you think is best overall for the city and it will just happen. What would you do? This is more or less the question I asked on Twitter this morning, and I think it’s only fair that I answer my own question. So here is a non-exhaustive list of items that came to mind while thinking of Toronto:
Substantially increase the pay of public sector workers throughout the city and bonus them based on measurable outcomes. Forget things like time limits on development applications; instead align incentives. For example, if we’re trying to get more shovels in the ground on affordable housing, incentivize people based on building permits issued. I’ll never forget what Roger Martin told me while I was at Rotman. When he became Dean of the school, Rotman was a whatever business school that wasn’t faring all that competitively in the rankings. One of the problems he discovered was that the school’s professors were getting paid far less than those at Wharton, Harvard, Stanford, and so on. So if you were a star, why would you ever want to teach at Rotman? He immediately matched the salaries of those top-tier schools and then, not surprisingly, the top-tier talent arrived. You get what you pay for.
Immediately price roads and congestion, and direct, to the fullest extent possible, the funds toward transit and cycling infrastructure. At the same time, the planning and building of transit would be depoliticized. There would be a reccurring funding stream and a plan that we’re continually building out. Minimize protracted debates. Never stop building. There’s a lot of talk this mayor election about solving traffic congestion. I have yet to see a plan that will actually work. Accurately pricing congestion likely won’t be popular, but I can guarantee you that it will be highly effective.
Ensure that property taxes are sustainably covering the costs of operating the city and then, at a minimum, peg all future increases to CPI.
Make any new housing development less than 12 storeys as-of-right. That would mean, no rezoning process and no site plan approval; just straight to building permit.
Empower the private sector to build affordable housing through incentives and subsidies. Affordable housing isn’t feasible to build on its own, which is why nobody is doing it. Inclusionary zoning also won’t get us there. Make developers want to build it and they’ll do it.
Liberalize licensing and cut red tape to empower small entrepreneurs across the city in various industries. A perfect example in my mind is street food. Toronto is the most diverse city in the world with some of the best restaurants, and yet the only thing you can buy on the street is a stupid hot dog. If we empowered small entrepreneurs to setup shop on our streets, we would easily have the best street food scene in the world. And I am positive that there are countless other latent opportunities in this city that are being held back by dumb and archaic rules.
Focus on art, design, culture, and innovation as central pillars of Toronto’s brand. Miami is a good example of what this approach — along with favourable taxes and nice weather — can do for a city. I’ve said this before, but here’s just one example: Toronto is in many ways the birthplace of the cryptocurrency Ethereum. Why is nobody talking about this? Why are we not celebrating and leveraging this? It’s a missed opportunity. Broadly speaking though, I think just having and doing three things can be effective in promoting new ideas for these pillars: have reasonably affordable housing, be a city that young people want to live in, and remain open and tolerant to immigrants.
Stop thinking of the night-time economy as a nuisance and instead think of it as a powerful economic development tool. I recently responded to this “night economy survey” that the City of Toronto released and the obvious bias is that nighttime things are seen as a terrible nuisance. In other words, “tell us how do we make all of this less annoying for grouchy voters.” My response was to extend last call to 4am and to start thinking of it as an opportunity to draw in young people, tourists, and whoever else. This complements my previous point.
This is, again, a completely non-exhaustive list. But if I had to summarize the overall ambition, it would be to make Toronto a truly exceptional and remarkable city. We should never be happy with mediocrity.
It asked whether developers should build more 3-bedroom apartments/condominiums. And not surprisingly, the vast majority of people voted yes. Of course, the problem with this poll is that it says nothing about the overall affordability of these larger suites. (We’ve talked about this many times before on the blog.)
So it is akin to asking: Should Mercedes put this concept car into production and make it widely available? My answer would obviously be yes. It’s a sweet car. I would like one. But I also don’t like spending money on depreciating “assets”, so in the end I probably wouldn’t buy it. That said, if you’re in the market for a sweet 3-bedroom condominium, I could sell you one right now.
My overly simplistic view of taxes is that it is generally good practice to tax the things you want less of — you know, things like cigarettes and pollution — and reduce taxes on the things you want more of — you know, things like housing and income.
The irony of this poll is that the vast majority of people voted for road tolls as the way to increase municipal funding. But in practice, this is not what we do at all! We heavily tax new housing and we are extremely reticent to even accurately price the usage of roads and highways.
Here in Toronto, I guess we kind of tried a few times, but in the end it never passes. Part of the problem, I think, is visibility. New home taxes are easy to hide from consumers. It is also easy to just vilify big bad developers. Road prices, on the other hand, are highly visible and they hit you repeatedly.
Perhaps what we ought to do is become more transparent about the charges that are levied on all new housing. I bet most people would be surprised.
We talk a lot about congestion charges and road pricing on this blog. Here’s a list of some of those posts. I found 46 that were tagged with “road pricing.”
I continue to believe that it’s the only way that big cities can effectively solve the problem of traffic congestion. It’s not being caused by the bicycle lanes that were just added to your street. It’s not the new COVID street patios. And it’s not the new apartment that was just built with too many parking spots.
The problem is mispricing.
If you want free roads, then you don’t get free-flowing traffic. That’s how this equation works, which is why I have always thought it a good idea to dynamically price roads based on demand, and then to direct those funds toward more efficient forms of mobility — such as transit.
Despite all this, it’s not a very popular approach in this part of the world. Toronto looked at road pricing back in 2016, but we got nervous and backed away from it. New York City has also been looking at a congestion charge for Manhattan south of 60th Street for at least 4-5 years. But this one appears to still be on the table.
According to this recent CityLab article, New York’s congestion prices could look something like this (note that this chart includes other pre-existing tolls):
But with some exceptions (I think this is an interesting approach):
Primary residents of the Manhattan central business district, which is south of 60th Street, and New York State residents with adjusted gross income of less than $60,000 would be eligible for a state tax credit equal to the amount of the new tolls, paid during the taxable year.
In total, this current pricing scheme is expected to generate an additional $1 billion in annual revenue for the city’s transportation authority. The MTA also plans to bond against this revenue and raise an additional $15 billion for new transit projects.
If you are a longtime reader of this blog, you’ll know that I am a supporter of road pricing. I believe it’s the only way to realistically solve the problem of traffic congestion and I believe that underpricing roads (such as not charging for them) isn’t fair and equitable to taxpayers, especially given our need to shift to more sustainable forms of mobility.
Also, new highways are far more expensive than most people realize, typically costing tens of millions of dollars for each kilometre of lane. Considering land, construction and additional operating expenses, the cost-recovery price for additional highway capacity – the toll required to repay its incremental costs – is typically 50 cents to $2.00 per vehicle-kilometre, far more than what motorists pay in fuel taxes.
The law of demand is a fairly simple economic concept. It states that price and quantity demanded have an inverse relationship. The more you charge for something, the less demand there will be. And the less you charge for something, the more demand there will be.
So it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that when you underprice road and highway usage, you get lots of demand — oftentimes too much demand. As Litman argues in his article: “You can have free roads or you can have free-flowing traffic, but it is not economically feasible to have both.”
A Pigovian tax is a tax on market activities that produce some kind of negative externality for society. The basic idea behind the tax is to try and use it to correct something that is happening, but that isn’t all that desirable. Examples of negative externalities might include things like pollution and traffic congestion.
Traffic congestion is a bad thing, which is why I have long been a supporter of road pricing. We know how to do this. It has been proven to work in countless cities, including Singapore, London, Stockholm, as well as many others. But in most cases, there isn’t the political will. That has certainly been the case here in Toronto.
Maybe this post will help.
A recent study by ETH Zurich, the University of Basel, and ZHAW has looked at the effects of Pigovian pricing on mobility within Switzerland. The study included 3,700 participants and spanned both French and German-speaking parts of the country.
The way the study works is pretty simple. They took thousands of people, gave them a transportation allowance (in Swiss francs), and then assigned costs to the various mobility options. These costs were intended to be commensurate with their amount of negative societal impact.
Driving, for example, came at a cost of 0.1 Swiss francs per kilometer. Whereas participants actually earned money for walking, since you could fairly easily argue that walking produces a net benefit to society. At the end of the four-week experiment, participants were allowed to pocket whatever money was left in their transportation wallet. So in theory there was an incentive to spend less.
What the researchers were trying to do was simulate Pigovian transport pricing and give people a more direct understanding of the societal costs associated with how they move around. And based on their results, it looks to have worked.
What the results show is that when you start pricing transport in this way, all mobility declines slightly (the “all modes” line). But that the biggest hit is, not surprisingly, driving. Car use declined by almost 5%, whereas walking, biking, and using public transit all increased. (The price elasticity of demand for car travel was found to be similar to when the cost of gas increases — people drive a bit less.)
The authors go on to argue that longer-term Pigovian pricing is likely to produce an even greater impact on mobility, as people would likely adjust and start making bigger decisions about where and how they live. That seems plausible to me.
Inclusionary zoning has been on my mind this week and so I thought I would revisit some of my old posts on the topic. I wrote about it here, here, here, here, here, and probably in a bunch of other places that I am forgetting right now. A number of these posts go as far back as 2015-2016.
As well-intended as inclusionary zoning may be, I have never been able to get my head around it. There are lots of cities with inclusionary zoning polices in place and what history generally tells us is that it tends to reduce overall housing supply and increase market rents/prices.
This makes intuitive sense when you consider that inclusionary zoning is in effect a tax on new development. And one of the only things I remember from my economics classes is that it’s generally good practice to tax the things we want less of. You know, things like cigarettes and carbon.
This is why I have also been a strong supporter of road pricing over the years on this blog. Traffic congestion is bad (demand also happens to be relatively inelastic). So tax it and redirect the funds toward transit.
Housing supply, on the other hand, isn’t bad. It’s pretty good and fairly useful. So in my simple mind, I don’t know why we would want to apply a tax to it instead of figuring out way to simultaneously encourage and incent the supply of new affordable housing. Here’s one idea.
