Interesting observation about the lower disincentive to travel in the
In fact it is worse than that: Because city traffic is slower and
therefore a journey over a fixed length of land takes longer you must
have to pay more LVT as
LVT = area used x rental value x time
(note the time component)
But to take two figures out of the air:
2,000 people per sq km (city)
200 people per sq km (country)
In the 'city' a catchment area of 30,000 people, enough to justify a
cinema perhaps, would take up 15 sq km - which is the equivalent of a
circle of diameter 4.3km. In the 'country' a circle of diameter 13.8km
(150 sq km) would enclose the same number. Perhaps a journey time across
these diameters might be the same. The fuel use in the country would be
a bit more, but the LVT would be a lot less.
The key to the analysis is the costs of fuel relative to the LVT cost.
4.3km at 30km/h is 8.6 minutes. 8.6 minutes of land, enough for a moving
car (+ extra space at non-peak traffic hours) (perhaps 200,000 GB Pounds
per year) costs 3.20GBP in LVT compared to fuel cost of perhaps 1-2GBP.
13.8km at 70km/h is 11.8 minutes. The land would be worth a fraction and
the LVT cost might end up only being perhaps 0.20GBP with a fuel cost of
Certainly there is less *dis*incentive to drive in the countryside than
in the city - unless LVT pushes up fuel costs (and indeed other mileage
related motoring costs) massively.
But as LVT would exist to tackle issues of fundamental justice (the
sharing of the common wealth), then what further argument can we have
against this situation? That it pollutes? Well, surely they polluter is
paying at the rate required by society to ensure justice?
By the way London's excellent congestion charge does appear to be the
closest thing to motoring LVT, until we have mileage and location based
tolling (GPS + computer systems).
Terence Bendixson wrote:
> Less efficient than land use in a society with non-free transport.
> One of the interesting aspects of paying the market price of land when
> travelling on it is that the rate would go up as a travellers moved from a
> rural through a suburban to an urban setting. If, and this is a big if,
> travellers were also obliged to pay as much as was needed to internalise all
> their environmental costs, their choice of travel would be optimised.
> Travellers would shift to ever more environmentally friendly and ever more
> space efficient forms of travel as they penetrated deeper and deeper into a
> metropolitan area.
> There is just one aspect of this that needs careful thought. The costs of
> travelling in rural districts would be the lowest of all. And the scope for
> using a personal vehicle would be less constrained than anywhere else.
> Would not this be a very attractive prospect? Would it not encourage people
> to spread themselves thinly across the land?