Re: [LandCafe] Re: Less land for bus depots
- On 1 Aug 2006 at 8:13, Wetzel Dave wrote:
> Even with electric buses a dark and dreary underground bus stationThen don't build one. There is nothing in LVT that makes you build
> 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.
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
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 weLVT would indeed encourage the best design standards, because it
> should be arguing that LVT would encourage the best possible design
> standards - better than anything the profit-driven capitalist system
> can provide.
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 6mFewer people in cars is a good thing, but more people in busses is not
> 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.
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