Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [LandCafe] Re: Less land for bus depots

Expand Messages
  • Dan Sullivan
    ... Then don t build one. There is nothing in LVT that makes you build something that makes no sense. Really, it s all a question of cost and benefits. How
    Message 1 of 17 , Aug 1, 2006
      On 1 Aug 2006 at 8:13, Wetzel Dave wrote:

      > Even with electric buses a dark and dreary underground bus station
      > would not be an inviting prospect for bus passengers. Unlike an
      > underground car park, bus passengers arrive early and have to wait
      > for their bus to arrive.

      Then don't build one. There is nothing in LVT that makes you build
      something that makes no sense. Really, it's all a question of cost and
      benefits. How much more do you suppose people would be willing to
      pay to be able to wait for busses in an airy park? Let them pay that
      premium, which will cover the land value tax, and let them have the
      airy park.

      On the other hand, if the customers do not value the airy park, and it
      is only valued by elitist planners who suppose themselves to know
      what is good for the customers better than the customers do, then the
      airy park will probably be a mistake. However, as I am neither a
      customer nor a planner, it is not for me to say one way or the other.

      > I'm suggesting in order to attract motorists from cars to bus we
      > should be arguing that LVT would encourage the best possible design
      > standards - better than anything the profit-driven capitalist system
      > can provide.

      LVT would indeed encourage the best design standards, because it
      makes the best design into the most profitable design. Although the
      battle right now is between subsidized cars and subsidized busses, a
      truly efficient system would have very little of either. People would
      arrange their lives so they could do almost everything on foot, just as
      they did for thousands of years before cars and busses came along.

      > In London we are trying to improve our transport system, with over 6m
      > bus passengers a day, we have already achieved a 40% growth in bus
      > patronage since the Mayor was first elected in 2000 and a 4% modal
      > shift from car to public transport.

      Fewer people in cars is a good thing, but more people in busses is not
      a good thing in itself. Busses also consume precious resources, and
      busses also pollute. They merely consume and pollute less than cars,
      which only makes them good by comparison, the way corn chips are
      healthy in comparison to potato chips. It makes far more sense to tax
      pollution and resource consumption, period, than to subsidize an
      alternative that merely consumes and pollutes "less." Then people will
      find ways to ride far less cars, and also ride less in busses. With fewer
      people riding busses, we needn't worry that much about elaborate bus

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.