Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
Density is a factor as well. As well as "start-up" costs for new communities. Low density is more costly than high density, adding communities costs more than densifying existing communities.
The total cost of the subsidies that's being talked about is $1 billion. That would make a major difference to the city if it were invested in, say, LRT up Centre Street. (I'm picking on the SE LRT because the user base is further out.).
|
I realilize that in the total some of the amount it is a lot to the city. But for an individual moving into the city 10 to 20k might only get you one neighbourhood closer to the center. So eliminating all capital cost subsidies on the burbs would make less of a difference in peoples choices then many think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
Either commercial density would shift away from the CBD or residential density would shift towards it, or most likely, a mix of the two.
Subsidies don't "produce externalities", but you optimize net public benefit where net subsidies / sin taxes match net positive / negative externalities. I think we're just into semantics... correct me if I'm wrong.
|
Is a dense downtown a good thing for a city or would a city be better served by mulitple pockets of fairly high density. (kinda like the TOD models being put forward). Because if you could cut out half of the traffic going downtown and put that into shorter comutes near communities you definately reduce transportation costs.
The only real way to change this is to density price roads. If you make it expensive for people to cause gridlock and you make them pay everyday so they are aware of the cost and you will change behaviours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
Subsidies don't "produce externalities", but you optimize net public benefit where net subsidies / sin taxes match net positive / negative externalities. I think we're just into semantics... correct me if I'm wrong.
|
I think we are just discussing semantics but I just much perfer to think of eliminating a subsidy to chage behaviour back to being market driven rather than saying we should add another subsidy to balance out the orignal subsidy to push the behaviour back into being market driven. The reason I think the thought difference is important is that you eliminate spending, lower average taxation and push costs back on the individuals rather than increase spending and taxation and take costs away from a second group.