Commuting subsidies with two transport modes
We study a simple model of commuting subsidies with two transport modes. City residents choose where to live and which mode to use. When all land is owned by city residents, one group gains from subsidies what the other loses. With absentee landownership, city residents as a group gain at the expense of landowners. Subsidies toward different modes have different effects, however. For instance, in one case, rich automobile drivers suffer from transit subsidies, while poor transit users may benefit from subsidies to automobiles.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Edward L. Glaeser & Matthew E. Kahn & Jordan Rappaport, 2000.
"Why Do the Poor Live in Cities?,"
NBER Working Papers
7636, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Edward L. Glaeser & Matthew E. Kahn & Jordan Rappaport, 2000. "Why Do The Poor Live In Cities?," Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers 1891, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
- Rainald Borck & Matthias Wrede, 2004.
"Political Economy of Commuting Subsidies,"
Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin
445, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
- Arnott, Richard J & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1981.
"Aggregate Land Rents and Aggregate Transport Costs,"
Royal Economic Society, vol. 91(362), pages 331-47, June.
- Richard J. Arnott & Joseph E. Stiglitz, 1980. "Aggregate Land Rents and Aggregate Transport Costs," NBER Working Papers 0523, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Charles A. M. de Bartolome & Stephen L. Ross, 2002. "Who's in Charge in the Inner City? The Conflict Between Efficiency and Equity in the Design of a Metropolitan Area," Working papers 2002-03, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
- de Bartolome, Charles A. M. & Ross, Stephen L., 2004. "Who's in charge of the central city? The conflict between efficiency and equity in the design of a metropolitan area," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 458-483, November.
- Brueckner, Jan K. & Selod, Harris, 2006.
"The political economy of urban transport-system choice,"
Journal of Public Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 90(6-7), pages 983-1005, August.
- Brueckner, Jan & Selod, Harris, 2004. "The Political Economy of Urban Transport System Choice," CEPR Discussion Papers 4682, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Brueckner, Jan K., 2005.
"Transport subsidies, system choice, and urban sprawl,"
Regional Science and Urban Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 715-733, November.
- Jan K. Brueckner, 2003. "Transport Subsidies, System Choice, and Urban Sprawl," CESifo Working Paper Series 1090, CESifo Group Munich.
- LeRoy, Stephen F. & Sonstelie, Jon, 1983. "Paradise lost and regained: Transportation innovation, income, and residential location," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 67-89, January.
- Sasaki, Komei, 1990. "Income class, modal choice, and urban spatial structure," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 322-343, May.
- DeSalvo, Joseph S. & Huq, Mobinul, 1996. "Income, Residential Location, and Mode Choice," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 84-99, July.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:juecon:v:63:y:2008:i:3:p:841-848. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.