For a long time, institutions have insisted on the fact that urban sprawl increases the need for public infrastructure and makes households dependent on several cars. In addition, politicians or environmentalists now recognize that reducing urban sprawl is essential to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Posted at 5:00 p.m.
On the other hand, the recommended solutions seem to stem from magical thinking: it would suffice to construct buildings of medium and high density, almost anywhere, to stop sprawl and reduce automobile use. This approach is doomed to failure because it does not take into account the root causes of sprawl. Here are a few :
– Many studies have shown that urban sprawl is heavily subsidized (notably Cahiers du GRIDD-HEC). In Quebec, taking into account the costs of roads, public parking lots, pollution and police services dedicated to roads, the net subsidy is approximately $4,000 per vehicle per year (for 15,000 km/year in 2020). If we apply this average to a household in the outer suburbs, with two or three vehicles covering a total of 60,000 km per year, the transportation subsidy is around $16,000 per year per household. In contrast, an urban household receives a minimal subsidy; he therefore pays taxes which serve to support those who create urban sprawl;
– This assessment does not take into account the fact that sprawl often requires new schools and new filtration and purification plants. By paying for these facilities, the provincial government subsidizes urban sprawl;
– Municipal taxation, based on property taxes, also has a bias towards low density. If we compare a block of 40 condos with 40 single-family homes, we can easily demonstrate that each condo, per unit, requires 10 times fewer streets, sidewalks, aqueducts, sewers, lighting and public snow removal. Despite this, the owner of a condo pays property taxes similar to those of single-family homes. A large proportion of its taxes therefore make it possible to provide services to the low density.
It is not a question of accusing the citizens who have chosen the suburbs. On the contrary, this balance sheet shows that the choice of the suburbs is a rational choice, taking into account all the subsidies.
Here are other sprawl biases that environmental groups dare not mention:
– In their decision to grant a mortgage, banks only consider the value of the property. That means a modest household can get a $400,000 loan on a suburban single-family home, which will require two or three vehicles. In contrast, the mortgage of an urban condo of $500,000 would be refused, even if this choice allows great savings in transportation;
– Living in a dense environment requires public authorities to manage noise pollution. In this regard, Quebec’s performance is quite poor: no program aimed at soundproofing housing, practically no limit on the number of pets that can occupy a dwelling. In the United States, many condo administrations prohibit dogs; such a decision is impossible in Quebec, according to our legal practices;
– For 50 years, all governments have considered access to property as a tool for enriching households. This option is still available for suburban houses, but it has become almost impossible for new condos: since governments have done nothing to encourage condominiums, almost all new medium to high density buildings now offer “condos rentals”, which it is impossible to buy.
It is therefore not surprising that many Quebec households choose the suburbs or refuse dense housing. The fight against urban sprawl is first and foremost a collective issue, which requires a fundamental change in fiscal and budgetary priorities. In particular, the carbon tax will have to be seriously increased. (Be careful not to confuse the effects of a tax, the fruit of which remains here, with the current situation which generates billions of dollars in profits for the oil companies.)
We must also stop subsidizing road extensions. In fact, there are only two modes of transport that stimulate the concentration of development: the metro and the tram, whose stations allow dense housing, where citizens will have a good transport service.
Quebec must seriously consider the tram option, because, for a given budget, the tram allows 10 times more stations than the metro. Around the world, tramway networks make it possible to densify cities and reduce GHG emissions. There are 1167 tram lines in Europe, compared to 0 in Quebec.
For individual transport, several politicians and environmentalists are promoting electric vehicles, the real costs of which vary between $50,000 and $120,000. In the United States, about 45% of electric vehicles belong to households that have three, four or five vehicles. The electric car is clearly at the service of urban sprawl. And subsidies for electric cars represent another spreading subsidy, to the benefit of the wealthiest households.
Politicians are now talking about the need to reduce sprawl and increase density. But beyond the rhetoric, there will be no significant progress without a major change in fiscal and budgetary practices. When will the revolt of the owners of urban condos, whose property tax bill is abusive in relation to the services received?