TODs and Subsidies

Transit-oriented developments (TODs) are supposed to promote economic growth because the demand for it is so high. But if so many people want to live in dense, mixed-use developments, why do they so often need subsidies?

The latest proposal to subsidize TODs comes from Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ). He wants to expand use of the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program to allow the funds to be used for TODs. RRIF was created mainly to provide low-interest loans to smaller freight railroads improve their facilities and restructure debt so shippers along those rail lines would not be stranded (or have to resort to trucks) if the rail lines failed.

However, some of the money has been used for passenger rail, including $663 million for Amtrak and $72.5 million for the Virginia Railway Express commuter trains. Considering that these are perpetual loss-making enterprises that have no hope of repaying the loans except out of other tax dollars, expanding this fund for money-losing TODs may seem a natural next step to Booker. But Booker’s fundamental assumption, like that of many Democrats, is that the federal government has an infinite capacity to give away funds, which is what these “loans” are if they can’t be repaid.
Kamagra provides cialis tadalafil 5mg effective treatment that lasts for about 6 hours after intake. Orders are reviewed by highly-trained US the cost of viagra licensed physicians. It should become easy for you to shut all the doorways on anxiety, online viagra sales because you’ll evade those situations. It s a http://respitecaresa.org/event/winter-break-camp/reindeer/ tadalafil 5mg no prescription sexual dysfunction that makes the man incapable to uphold an erection while practicing sex with the mate.

The Antiplanner has no objection if someone wants to live in a high-density mixed-use development or if a developer wants to build one to meet that demand. But there is no reason for the government to favor such developments with subsidies, loans, or other support.

Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

4 Responses to TODs and Subsidies

  1. letsgola says:

    American land use policies are ridiculous. The federal government proposes to spend millions subsidizing dense development where it wouldn’t otherwise happen. Meanwhile local governments waste resources by precluding dense development with single-family zoning in places where it would happen. And we know it would happen; otherwise NIMBYs wouldn’t militate for subsidies through single-family zoning!

  2. bennett says:

    “But if so many people want to live in dense, mixed-use developments, why do they so often need subsidies?”

    That’s a great question! In many places all that needs to be done is the relaxing of land use regulations allowing for higher densities and intensities (or a mix of uses), and boom, high rises everywhere. That’s what happened in the West Campus neighborhood in Austin. They didn’t have to subsidize it, they just had to allow it.

    When it comes to subsidizing development it’s often about control and getting the exact development that the political powers want. With TOD’s the subsidy is less about the D and more about the T.

  3. the highwayman says:

    The Autoplanner: “The latest proposal to subsidize TODs comes from Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ). He wants to expand use of the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program to allow the funds to be used for TODs. RRIF was created mainly to provide low-interest loans to smaller freight railroads improve their facilities and restructure debt so shippers along those rail lines would not be stranded (or have to resort to trucks) if the rail lines failed.”

    THWM: So what? You’ve admitted your self that roads are there regardless of economic conditions.

  4. prk166 says:

    If these subsidies are good and widely supported, there’s no need to re-purpose n existing program. They could create a new program just for this. Of course they don’twant to becuse the political support isn’t there.

Leave a Reply