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

RE: [WorldTransport Forum] Land Value - example of lost benefit

Expand Messages
  • Wetzel Dave
    Michael Many thanks for this valuable local perspective on the Brisbane Busways. I m not in a position to support or oppose the Brisbane Busways, but I would
    Message 1 of 3 , Feb 19, 2004
      Michael
      Many thanks for this valuable local perspective on the Brisbane Busways.
      I'm not in a position to support or oppose the Brisbane Busways, but I would
      like to comment on some of the issues you raise.


      1. The desirability for segregated Busways as opposed to bus lanes on
      existing roads.

      In London we have not the space for too many segregated Busways, but I must
      admit, I had always assumed them preferable to bus lanes that cars could
      easily infringe upon and that therefore either operated inefficiently or
      needed expensive enforcement with cameras and police time.
      In the light of your experience perhaps I now need to think again!
      Of course, the extra road capacity attracting more cars problem could be
      dealt with by replacing an existing traffic lane with grass verges, wider
      pavements for peds or new cycle tracks. In London we have a bus priority
      programme and our Mayor has introduced congestion charging to discourage
      unnecessary car use in the centre which now gives us the problem of our
      buses running early!

      2. The integration of public transport services to cater for orbital as well
      as radial journeys.

      This surely is a local decision that could be reversed.
      It is a familiar problem to us where traffic engineers in the past have
      usually favoured the radial peak-time car commuters at the expense of
      orbital movements. This is seen in terms of road construction since the
      second world war, the phasing of traffic lights and junction layouts.
      Happily, it is much easier now to advocate the case that new road building
      simply adds to traffic problems, it does not cure them.
      Similarly, most of our railways, (many dating back to Victorian times)
      provide mostly for radial movements to the centre and very few opportunities
      for orbital movements or interchanges. (Competing private railways didn't
      want to lose their paxs by building a station where they crossed another's
      line). In London we are using buses to cater for these movements. With the
      Mayor's policies since 2000 we have increased our bus fleet, integrated
      cheaper ticketing between modes, introduced over 30 new bus policy
      initiatives and witnessed a staggering 30% increase in bus patronage at a
      time when most of the UK is losing bus paxs.

      3. Extra income may be used to build new roads.
      This is not inevitable. Again, surely a local decision? In London our Mayor
      is using congestion charge net income (£90m next year) to help fund buses,
      walking and cycling initiatives.

      4. Urban sprawl associated with car use.
      This is where the idea of Land Value Taxation (LVT) or a Location Benefit
      Levy (LBL) comes into its own!
      If it becomes expensive to hold unused land in towns or cities then the
      landowners will put their sites to good use in providing homes and jobs.
      This releases the pressure for urban sprawl. Where LVT applies, (even with
      only a 1% LVT), they reap this benefit and their towns are more compact

      5. Unnecessary induced trips.
      These can be mitigated by better planning providing facilities close to
      where people live and work. However, are we really equipped to judge the
      value of a person's trip? A similar argument is used here to oppose our
      policy of free fares for pensioners. They dare to use their passes to enjoy
      the travel journey itself and being out of doors meeting people, rather than
      actually using the public transport to visit amenities (theatre, cinema,
      restaurants etc.) that they can't afford.

      Of course, none of the transport planning problems you raise are an argument
      against LVT. In fact, if our transport policies add to land values then
      surely there can be no argument why landowners should be the beneficiaries
      and not the taxpayers and riders who have paid for the transport.

      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: 18 February 2004 10:55
      To: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com
      Cc: 'UTSG'; 'WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com'
      Subject: Re: [WorldTransport Forum] Land Value - example of lost benefit


      Being resident in Brisbane, the problem with the Busways is that the
      intended network will cost >$1billion ... and the effect is to create a
      separate Bus (Free)way system through the suburbs ... rather than provide a far more extensive network of bus lanes on EXISTING road space ... so one reason for the increase in prices is likely to be the improved car access given fewer buses now travel on the roads ...!

      We also know that the "success" of the Busway includes a large number of
      induced ADDITIONAL trips now that it is so easy to travel to the CBD ...
      when previously it would not have been practical given traffic congestion and parking. I my view it is a vexed question whether to include these
      trips eg to the CBD for lunch, as a useful contribution.

      Similarly, the Busways further emphasise the radial CBD focus but do little if anything for circumferential trips and multi-modal trips given that
      unlike most other comparable cities, Brisbane also has an excellent
      suburban rail system ... but buses rarely provide an integrated service
      with the trains ...! Check this out at the TransInfo website ...!

      The other issue is the increase in prices simply generates more revenue for the local authority but the revenue is not ring fenced ... so it could be being used to build more road capacity ... to create more low density
      sprawl ....!

      I often wonder about these land/house price increases ...

      Michael
      Yeates......................................................................
      .....

      At 04:00 AM 18/02/2004, Wetzel Dave wrote:
      >Received from David Reed.
      >Lanark has over the past year or so experienced a 40% rise in house prices.
      >One cannot help but note the link between this and the increase to a 30
      >minute frequency train service.
      >
      >The other detail which is worth working on is the enthusiesm for
      initiatives
      >featured in Making Cities Work (published this week) with authors George
      >Hazel and Roger Parry - the latter being CEO of Clear Channel
      International.
      >The book and associated project/competition is featured on
      >www.makingcitieswork.com and the book notes the success of the Brisbane
      >busway, rasining land values 20% in 3 months compared to a 6% figure for
      non
      >connected land.
      >
      >Oh that we could mobilise that land value factor as well as the
      Metropolitan
      >Railway Company did (by buying up adjoining land and building the houses on
      >it).
      >
      >
      >David Reed.
      >
      >
      >Or better still, not go for a single hit, but collect a Location Benefit
      >Levy or Land Value Tax - which would create a revenue stream for future
      >transport projects - year in and year out!
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >Dave
      >
      >Dave Wetzel
      >Vice-Chair
      >Transport for London
      >42-50 Victoria Street. London.
      >SW1H 0TL. UK
      >
      >Tel: 020 7941 4200
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >***************************************************************************
      ********
      >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.
      >***************************************************************************
      ********
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >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
      >Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >





      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
      Yahoo! Groups Links






      ***********************************************************************************
      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.
      ***********************************************************************************
    • Todd Alexander Litman
      For a comprehensive summary of studies of the property value impacts of transit see FINANCING TRANSIT SYSTEMS THROUGH VALUE CAPTURE: AN ANNOTATED
      Message 2 of 3 , Feb 19, 2004
        For a comprehensive summary of studies of the property value impacts of
        transit see "FINANCING TRANSIT SYSTEMS THROUGH VALUE CAPTURE: AN ANNOTATED
        BIBLIOGRAPHY" by Jeffery J. Smith and Thomas A. Gihring, available at the
        Victoria Transport Policy Institute website: (http://www.vtpi.org/smith.htm).

        Please let us know if you uncover any additional quantitative studies.


        Best wishes,
        -Todd Litman


        At 08:54 PM 2/18/2004 +1000, Michael Yeates wrote:
        > >Lanark has over the past year or so experienced a 40% rise in house prices.
        > >One cannot help but note the link between this and the increase to a 30
        > >minute frequency train service.
        > >
        > >The other detail which is worth working on is the enthusiesm for initiatives
        > >featured in Making Cities Work (published this week) with authors George
        > >Hazel and Roger Parry - the latter being CEO of Clear Channel International.
        > >The book and associated project/competition is featured on
        > >www.makingcitieswork.com and the book notes the success of the Brisbane
        > >busway, rasining land values 20% in 3 months compared to a 6% figure for non
        > >connected land.
        > >
        > >Oh that we could mobilise that land value factor as well as the Metropolitan
        > >Railway Company did (by buying up adjoining land and building the houses on
        > >it).
        > >
        > >
        > >David Reed.
        > >
        > >
        > >Or better still, not go for a single hit, but collect a Location Benefit
        > >Levy or Land Value Tax - which would create a revenue stream for future
        > >transport projects - year in and year out!
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >Dave
        > >
        > >Dave Wetzel
        > >Vice-Chair
        > >Transport for London
        > >42-50 Victoria Street. London.
        > >SW1H 0TL. UK
        > >
        > >Tel: 020 7941 4200


        Sincerely,
        Todd Litman, Director
        Victoria Transport Policy Institute
        "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
        1250 Rudlin Street
        Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada
        Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560
        Email: litman@...
        Website: http://www.vtpi.org
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.