Re: Land value UK
- -- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@...> wrote:
> > Would land values rise around a new street
> > running tram line? It think they would and
> > moreso if the tram were tram/trains as in
> > Manchester and they had dedicated runs and
> > did not mix too much with other street traffic.
> They absolutely do, that's why middle-class
> homeownerists would love trams to be built
> near them :) I think I read a study by Lincoln
> Institute or some other org once that put it
> in figures. Building a tram-line is a long-term
> commitment that has a huge effect on land-values,
> bus-routes can be cancelled by a whim. Developers
> around the turn of the 20th century built
> tram-lines to increase the value of their developments.
> I think the problem with trams is that they are not as cost-
> effective as buses looking at ordinary revenues, more of the
> benefits are externalized, and will be ditched in the
> end if that value isn't captured. Thanks to vulgar-economics,
> tram-lines are constantly on the chopping blocks in cities
Unlike buses trams are viewed as permanent, hence why as you noted land prices rise when built.
Liverpool had the largest tram network in the UK and foolishly scrapped it in
1957. Buses were more flexible in the expansion of the post-war city. But they merged differing commuter rail networks in the 1970s to create Merseyrail, a smaller version of London's Underground. Using tram/trains it could service the districts not served by Merseyrail.
In the 1990s trams became popular again. The government was pouring money into them. Manchester expanded their Metrolink, Nottingham, Sheffield and Croydon got them. Even Dublin introduced them. Liverpool designed one and it was approved - it was a poor design with no proper connections to Merseyrail. The city was chasing government money not looking what is best for the city. I do not recall if land prices rose along the planned routes. There was criticism of trams.
In Manchester, Sheffield or Nottingham trams trundle through the city centre
streets at an average speed of less than 10 mph, screeching as they negotiate tight city-centre corners. They are like a large fish out of water, unless they are on truly dedicated and segregated track, which cannot be achieved on most city centre streets.
In 2006, for example, Manchester's Altram accounts showed a loss of £8M due to overoptimistic passenger projections, while in the West Midlands the Midland Metro, also operated by Altram, showed losses of about £16M. Worst of all, down in London, Tramtrack Croydon Ltd recorded debts of £100M and was seeking financial restructuring in order to continue trading. Many schemes were just not thought out properly.
Liverpool's tram scheme was cancelled by the government despite the lines being delivered. It was a bad unintegrated with Merseyrail scheme, so best it was canned. Liverpool has an abundance of disused rail infrastructure awaiting reuse to merge into Merseyrail, with about 4 to 5 miles of tunnel disused under the city. One of the world's oldest tunnels built in 1829.
Then the debacle of the expensive Edinburgh tram scheme, which will put the lid on trams probably for ever.
The Shanghai supercapacitor electric buses show the way forward. The supercaps charge at each bus stop not using overhead wires. There is no reason not have this technology applied to trams, reducing overhead wire maintenance costs. R&D is ongoing on fuelcell trains. Again this technology can be applied to trams - and cheap way to electrify rail lines without overhead wires.
However, in parts of London trams can be used which would also reduce car
congestion - less space for cars.
When designed and built properly trams are fine, but they need largely
segregated tracks to keep other surface traffic away from them to have the advantage of speed. Many years ago they went above and below the surface to solve the problems.
Trams can be easily built and funded by the mechanism we all know of.
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Harry Pollard <harrypollard0@...> wrote:
> There is an enormous amount of urban land of all values which is presently held out of use at rack-rent (or higher) prices.It is held out of use in the hope of rezoning windfalls, which permitting development and use at the current permitted density would likely scotch for decades. As long as the long-term economic growth rate exceeds the tax rate, owning land increases the owner's net worth, so there is no reason to take a chance by permitting productive use.
> Such holdings would becomeRents already reflect that advantage, so they would not topple.
> available to producers and other users with adoption of full land Rent
> collection and Rents would topple to a point where they would accurately
> reflect the advantage provided by the surrounding population.
> You agree with me that present land rent is a 'monopoly rent'. I happen toIt's not appropriate, because what you are talking about is in fact rent.
> call it rack-rent because that seems to me to be an appropriate term.
> Your peculiar opposition to this seems to stem from your mistaken belief thatNo, YOUR peculiar theory stems from your mistaken belief that rent is rack-rent.
> with full Rent collection, rack-rent would remain. In fact, as I have stated, it would disappear.
> I don't know where you got your land-value taxation ideas from, but you treat it as simply a good way to tax.My UIE proposal proves that claim false. LVT is essential to equal human rights.
> The real intention of collecting RentNo, the real intention is to restore the EQUAL RIGHTS of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor, relieving the poverty of the less able by ensuring they have free, secure access to economic opportunity, and enabling the more able to rise as high as their productive contributions will carry them by relieving them of the burden of supporting the greedy, privileged, parasitic landowning overclass in exorbitant luxury. I am much more aware of that intention than you, as your opposition to my UIE proposal shows.
> (popularly, land-value taxing) is to produce a genuine equality of
> conditions for all, replacing the present rigged economy which condemns the
> less able to poverty and the more able to a lifetime of paying rack-rent.
> The object of full Rent collection is to take the first step towardsI do indeed.
> 'Liberty and Justice for All'. Reducing this to a simple tax advocacy diminishes its importance as a genuine reform.
> But, you probably know that.
-- Roy Langston