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

RE: [WorldTransport] About transport impacts over urban land

Expand Messages
  • Wetzel Dave
    What you have identified is not the difference in the cost of a home - but the difference in the value of the land on which the home sits. Of course you are
    Message 1 of 11 , Aug 27, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      What you have identified is not the difference in the cost of a home - but
      the difference in the value of the land on which the home sits.

      Of course you are right, transport is not the only factor to give land its
      value - transport is just one of many influences.

      However, what we do know is that the individual landowner does not create
      land value. It is the community's demand for land in a specific location
      that gives land its value. If Government's collected this location benefit
      as a levy or a tax on site values, they could pay for their services and
      reduce taxes on trade and incomes.

      Let me know if any reader wants more information (appropriate web-sites
      etc.)

      Dave

      Dave Wetzel
      Vice-chair, TfL.
      Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street.
      London. SW1H 0TL. UK.
      Tel 020 7941 4200


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Lee Schipper [mailto:SCHIPPER@...]
      Sent: 09 August 2003 19:57
      To: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [WorldTransport] About transport impacts over urban land


      I think the issue is the other way around: How much does a given size
      home cost in a dense neighborhood, in a sprawling neighborhood, in an
      older development, in a newer development, as a function of the location
      of that neighborhood, its local population density, its jobs to housing
      ratio etc? Then, if good transit service is establish, how much do
      housing costs rise (if at all); conversely, how do housing costs vary as
      a function of distance from a good transit line.
      On a very practical basis, 150 sq meters in Georgetown, Washington DC
      costs about twice to three times what it costs i Cleveland Park (two
      long metro stops away) and four times what it costs in Tenley town. The
      latter two actually have metro stops, Georgetown is 300 to 2000 meters
      from the nearest Metro station (buses in DC are a slow burning
      disaster). Housing close in to the suburb of Bethesda, which has good
      Metro and bus service, costs more than housing farther from the main
      metro stop, but how much more.
      Could it simply be that consumers figured out that the farther out you
      go, the more land and home you get for a unit of investment, and, aided
      by US policies that encourage borrowing for home ownership, make a
      tradeoff of a little more in cheap fuel and insurance in exchange for a
      lot more land? Could it also be that car insurance is cheaper in the
      low-density suburbs than it is in the higher density city core (it is)?

      In the end I think we paid $50K extra to be two blocks from Cleveland
      Park Metro; lots of options 500-2000 meters farther away offerred more
      house for less money. Since I cycle to work those extra 2000 meters,
      which would have been a long uphill grind, would have been a real ordeal
      day after day. But the hill I do have to climb is worth it, since I
      could not afford to live in Georgetown (where I rented) and pay around
      $1mn for a large three bedroom home rather than $780K for a much larger
      5bdr home (yes, with the study etc all the home is filled up already). I
      could have lived i the farther burbs for half as much, had a larger lot,
      driven or taken public transport 45 minutes each way, paid to go to a
      gym rather than cycled.. You all get my drift.

      That may be the trade off. Why do the various reports on sprawl in the
      US focus only on transport costs and fuel, but consistently omit all the
      other characteristics AND COSTS of residential location? Life is more
      than one-dimensional, is it not?

      >>> john.holtzclaw@... 08/01/03 05:08PM >>>

      Hi Javier,

      We have information on that in the U.S. on our website,
      http://www.SierraClub.org/sprawl
      Go to Transportation; then Articles and Research; then Smart Growth --
      As
      Seen From the Air
      or How Compact Neighborhoods Affect Modal Choice







      John Holtzclaw
      415-977-5534
      John.Holtzclaw@...
      sprawl and transportation action -- http://www.SierraClub.org/sprawl
      This View of Density -- www.sflcv.org/density


      "Javier Pacheco Raguz" <jpraguz@...>

      06/12/2003 01:33 AM



      Hello everybody, I am glad to meet you all. I would like to make a
      request for information about the impacts of transportation (with
      special focus on mass transit systems) over urban land in terms of
      value, density, pollution, etc. I am doing research about it and I
      will be thankful if somebody can provide me some tips about related
      literature. Thanks in advance for your kind help.

      Javier Pacheco
      ITC UPLA.2 Student
      Enschede, The Netherland




      ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

      The Journal of World Transport Policy and Practice
      Consult at: http://wTransport.org
      To post message to group: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com
      To subscribe: WorldTransport-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      To unsubscribe: WorldTransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





      The Journal of World Transport Policy and Practice
      Consult at: http://wTransport.org
      To post message to group: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com
      To subscribe: WorldTransport-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      To unsubscribe: WorldTransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



      ***********************************************************************************
      The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.

      If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster@....

      This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
      ***********************************************************************************
    • Chris Bradshaw
      This is a very important topic to discuss here. I think it is a general rule that location costs more housing-wise, but the buyer gets benefits that, at
      Message 2 of 11 , Aug 31, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        This is a very important topic to discuss here.

        I think it is a general rule that "location" costs more housing-wise,
        but the buyer gets benefits that, at least to him, appear to be equal to
        or better than the higher margin.

        "Location" refers to both being near that which is desirable, and NOT
        being near to that which is undesirable. Those marketing the suburbs
        have always emphasized the latter (crime, street traffic, noise, poor
        schools, lower-income neighbours), while treating the longer distances
        to desirable services as being very easy to overcome (owning/using one
        or more cars).

        Transit is one of the factors that are part of the positive side of
        "location," however, one does not want to have to use it for more than a
        narrow range of trips (e.g., commuting), while needing the full range of
        services within walking distance (clustered and along a fully walkable
        street).

        All of suburbia in our city has transit, but only for those residents
        limiting their use to commuting (and having regular 9-5 jobs located
        along the peak-hour routes, wanting to avoid transfers) rely on it.
        Only those living in these areas unwillingly (youth, live-in help,
        dependent seniors) will use the off-peak transit service for other kinds
        of trips.

        Most New Urbanism development is of this latter category, since they
        lack internal services and are located too far from where the true urban
        "fabric" of main streets and mixed uses ends. For that reason, they
        still have as much yard space given over to the owners' cars, but this
        space is at the rear, along a laneway, with the house pushed forward to
        the street.

        What our industry needs to do is to educate housing consumers (and
        government officials and developers) to the following:

        1. Walking is everyone's favourite mode, and the destinations which can
        be walked to is at the highest level of "location." There is growing
        awareness that, although driving is seen as superior to transit, it is
        significantly inferior to walking.

        2. Housing price is related to transportation costs; the two must be
        considered as a unit. "Location" reduces the amount of "fleet" the
        household needs, and the distance each vehicle is driven. The
        perception (and much of the reality) is that car-ownership is almost as
        high in high-location areas as poor-location areas (see also next).

        3. People facing low driving needs cannot, in today's market, buy a
        "fraction" of a car; they can only buy older cars (I have found,
        although I have seen no research, that the distance a vehicle is driven
        is in reverse proportion to its age; with age, it becomes less reliable
        and less "presentable"; also, with age, the driving costs shift from
        fixed to variable, gaining some of the costing advantages of
        carsharing). [One way to offer carsharing to those owning older cars is
        to ask, "What is better, owning all of a partial car, or owning part of
        a whole car?"]

        4. Living in high-location areas requires a smaller house and yard,
        since there are more nearby communal areas, e.g., parks, churches,
        schools, coffee shops, bars (cf.: Oldenberg, R. _The Great Good
        Place_). These provide not only out-of-house social spaces, but the
        higher density makes sharing things easier. A walkable area can also
        reduce expenses for health clubs and reduce the time adults spend
        driving other household members. With carsharing, the "fleet" can be
        reduced, further reducing the house's need to provide indoor and outdoor
        amenities and space for vehicles.

        Ironically, as consumers start getting this point, the first symptom
        will be that the location-sensitive price differential for housing will
        actually increase. The second one should be that those in low-location
        neighbourhoods will organize to "invite in" -- through a neighbourhood
        plan -- the services and employment they lack. They will need to "tame"
        their streets to attract the growing number of entrepreneurs who are
        interested in operating small-scale main-street businesses.

        Chris Bradshaw
        Vrtucar, Ottawa
      • Wetzel Dave
        Michael - Sorry it s taken me so long to come back to you. I agree with your observations. To summarise: the sale price of a site is dependent on three
        Message 3 of 11 , Sep 16 5:26 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Michael -
          Sorry it's taken me so long to come back to you.

          I agree with your observations.

          To summarise: the sale price of a site is dependent on three factors:

          1. The optimum use that the new owner can make of the site.
          2. The permitted use allowed by the community/planning authority/restrictive
          covenant etc.
          3. Any hope value that the seller can add and the purchaser is willing to
          pay.

          Improved access (public transport or new roads) adds to 1 above.

          Thus, landowners are creaming off the location value of their sites which
          they do nothing to create.

          If Governments were to tax land values to pay for transport then a virtuous
          circle is created.
          The tax would need to be an annual levy on the rental value of each site.
          The value would be assessed on the optimum permitted use of the site
          ignoring the value of buildings or improvements.
          Thus, people receiving the financial benefit of a valuable location make a
          contribution to the rest of the community.
          Unlike other taxes, a land value tax is cheap to collect and difficult to
          avoid.
          Owners will make better use of their sites and society will avoid urban
          sprawl.
          The property cycle will be evened out.

          Therefor in your second example, the land tax on the owners of land occupied
          by the poorer people living out of town will be less.
          However, if a new motorway or mass transit is built, reducing their
          transport costs, then both the land value, and the land tax would increase.
          If this location benefit value is not taxed, then landowners will collect
          the benefit as they increase their rents to poor people after their
          transport costs have been reduced.

          Happy to supply more information if required.

          Dave

          Dave Wetzel
          Vice-Chair
          Transport for London
          42-50 Victoria Street. London.
          SW1H 0TL. UK

          Tel: 020 7941 4200


          -----Original Message-----
          From: Michael Yeates [mailto:michaelm@...]
          Sent: 25 August 2003 14:07
          To: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [WorldTransport] About transport impacts over urban land


          There is also more to this ... using some Australian info.

          1. Often the price of a site per se reflects not only the current but also
          any potential development rights so people may be buying both a current
          utility as well as a future redevelopment option ... ie in the second case,
          gaining a speculative windfall on the greater cost achieveable from the land
          value only without any betterment tax ... incidentally in doing so, the
          complete "cost" of the existing building changes from being an asset to a
          liability or cost simply on that decision whether to redevelop or not.

          2. The other issue is the view that good public transport and walking and
          cycling is not necessarily linked to housing and population density ie that
          good other-than-car alternatives can be provided at suburban densities ... I
          would suggest that the reason that these facilities seem expensive is that
          roads and the real full costs thereof are grossly underpriced eg one is the
          cost impacts of children no longer able or allowed to walk or cycle to
          school but how do we price the social and educational disbenefits? It does
          however require a different type of suburban road network to that
          traditionally designed buy Oz and US traffic and subdivision engineers. So
          what also tends to happen here in some areas is an inverse relationship
          where in some parts of Australia, poorer people pay less for houses at the
          outer edges of the older areas but then pay much more per dollar income per
          household member for car use and have a much poorer or almost useless public
          transport service.

          Cities and urbanising areas are very complex ... and very diverse ... almost
          defying generalised rules... but the "trends" are pretty clear...!

          Paul Mees' book "A Very Public Solution" is worth a read on this topic...

          Michael Yeates
          Brisbane Oz

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Lee Schipper" <SCHIPPER@...>
          To: <WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 4:57 AM
          Subject: Re: [WorldTransport] About transport impacts over urban land


          > I think the issue is the other way around: How much does a given size
          > home cost in a dense neighborhood, in a sprawling neighborhood, in an
          > older development, in a newer development, as a function of the location
          > of that neighborhood, its local population density, its jobs to housing
          > ratio etc? Then, if good transit service is establish, how much do
          > housing costs rise (if at all); conversely, how do housing costs vary as
          > a function of distance from a good transit line.
          > On a very practical basis, 150 sq meters in Georgetown, Washington DC
          > costs about twice to three times what it costs i Cleveland Park (two
          > long metro stops away) and four times what it costs in Tenley town. The
          > latter two actually have metro stops, Georgetown is 300 to 2000 meters
          > from the nearest Metro station (buses in DC are a slow burning
          > disaster). Housing close in to the suburb of Bethesda, which has good
          > Metro and bus service, costs more than housing farther from the main
          > metro stop, but how much more.
          > Could it simply be that consumers figured out that the farther out you
          > go, the more land and home you get for a unit of investment, and, aided
          > by US policies that encourage borrowing for home ownership, make a
          > tradeoff of a little more in cheap fuel and insurance in exchange for a
          > lot more land? Could it also be that car insurance is cheaper in the
          > low-density suburbs than it is in the higher density city core (it is)?
          >
          > In the end I think we paid $50K extra to be two blocks from Cleveland
          > Park Metro; lots of options 500-2000 meters farther away offerred more
          > house for less money. Since I cycle to work those extra 2000 meters,
          > which would have been a long uphill grind, would have been a real ordeal
          > day after day. But the hill I do have to climb is worth it, since I
          > could not afford to live in Georgetown (where I rented) and pay around
          > $1mn for a large three bedroom home rather than $780K for a much larger
          > 5bdr home (yes, with the study etc all the home is filled up already). I
          > could have lived i the farther burbs for half as much, had a larger lot,
          > driven or taken public transport 45 minutes each way, paid to go to a
          > gym rather than cycled.. You all get my drift.
          >
          > That may be the trade off. Why do the various reports on sprawl in the
          > US focus only on transport costs and fuel, but consistently omit all the
          > other characteristics AND COSTS of residential location? Life is more
          > than one-dimensional, is it not?
          >
          > >>> john.holtzclaw@... 08/01/03 05:08PM >>>
          >
          > Hi Javier,
          >
          > We have information on that in the U.S. on our website,
          > http://www.SierraClub.org/sprawl
          > Go to Transportation; then Articles and Research; then Smart Growth --
          > As
          > Seen From the Air
          > or How Compact Neighborhoods Affect Modal Choice
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > John Holtzclaw
          > 415-977-5534
          > John.Holtzclaw@...
          > sprawl and transportation action -- http://www.SierraClub.org/sprawl
          > This View of Density -- www.sflcv.org/density
          >
          >
          > "Javier Pacheco Raguz" <jpraguz@...>
          >
          > 06/12/2003 01:33 AM
          >
          >
          >
          > Hello everybody, I am glad to meet you all. I would like to make a
          > request for information about the impacts of transportation (with
          > special focus on mass transit systems) over urban land in terms of
          > value, density, pollution, etc. I am doing research about it and I
          > will be thankful if somebody can provide me some tips about related
          > literature. Thanks in advance for your kind help.
          >
          > Javier Pacheco
          > ITC UPLA.2 Student
          > Enschede, The Netherland
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          >
          > The Journal of World Transport Policy and Practice
          > Consult at: http://wTransport.org
          > To post message to group: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com
          > To subscribe: WorldTransport-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > To unsubscribe: WorldTransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > The Journal of World Transport Policy and Practice
          > Consult at: http://wTransport.org
          > To post message to group: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com
          > To subscribe: WorldTransport-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > To unsubscribe: WorldTransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >
          >
          >




          The Journal of World Transport Policy and Practice
          Consult at: http://wTransport.org
          To post message to group: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com
          To subscribe: WorldTransport-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
          To unsubscribe: WorldTransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



          ***********************************************************************************
          The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.

          If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster@....

          This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
          ***********************************************************************************
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.