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

car sharing

Expand Messages
  • Simon Norton
    I have a proposal which would kick-start car sharing in central London. This is that when a car sharing scheme had been set up in a given neighbourhood within
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 9, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      I have a proposal which would kick-start car sharing in central London. This is
      that when a car sharing scheme had been set up in a given neighbourhood within
      the congestion charging zone, the residents' discount on the congestion charge
      should be removed or reduced except for cars that belong to such a scheme, and
      for people who could prove a need to have their own vehicle. I have included
      this among my proposals in the consultation on the Transport for London proposal
      to extend the zone.

      Incidentally, have any surveys been done anywhere to determine what proportion
      of traffic is necessary, in the sense (for cars) that it could not realistically
      be transferred to alternative modes ? I would have thought such a survey to be a
      basic tool for those who want to make our environment more people-friendly. Or
      has everyone with the resources to commission such a survey got sucked into the
      idea that the quality of life is improved by letting people make optional car
      trips right up to the capacity of the road system ?

      Simon Norton
    • Todd Alexander Litman
      There are a number of studies that investigate what portion of trips shift to alternative modes, or disappear altogether, in response to various incentives. An
      Message 2 of 4 , Apr 12, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        There are a number of studies that investigate what portion of trips shift
        to alternative modes, or disappear altogether, in response to various
        incentives. An excellent example is the TravelSmart program in Perth
        (www.dpi.wa.gov.au/travelsmart) and Portland
        (www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/options/travelsmart.htm), by SocialData
        (www.socialdata.de), which included before-and-after studies of TDM
        marketing programs.

        To an economist, there is no particularly level of traffic that is a
        "necessary." Rather, there is a demand curve that ranges from low to high
        net value trips. At a particular price, consumers and businesses will make
        a particular number of vehicle trips, and if the price is increased their
        trip-making declines. The problems that we face, I believe, is that a
        number of market distortions currently underprice driving, and other the
        long-term this leads to more automobile-dependent transportation and land
        use patterns. There are a number of Win-Win transportation market reforms
        that can correct these distortions, leading to a more efficient
        transportation systems (see http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm52.htm). Road
        pricing and carsharing are two examples of these reforms, and so I think
        your ideas make a lot of sense.

        By the way, many economists have long supported the idea of road pricing
        and other types of transportation market reforms (such as parking pricing,
        pay-as-you-drive vehicle insurance, and encouraging vehicle rental rather
        than ownership options), and most I think would agree that these increase
        economic efficiency and productivity overall (for more information see "TDM
        and Economic Development" at http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm54.htm). The
        problem we face is that the general public is accustomed to underpricing,
        and so it tends to be difficult (but not impossible) to implement reforms,
        as experience in London demonstrates.


        Best wishes,
        -Todd Litman


        At 03:47 PM 4/9/2004 +0100, Simon Norton wrote:
        >I have a proposal which would kick-start car sharing in central London.
        >This is
        >that when a car sharing scheme had been set up in a given neighbourhood within
        >the congestion charging zone, the residents' discount on the congestion charge
        >should be removed or reduced except for cars that belong to such a scheme, and
        >for people who could prove a need to have their own vehicle. I have included
        >this among my proposals in the consultation on the Transport for London
        >proposal
        >to extend the zone.
        >
        >Incidentally, have any surveys been done anywhere to determine what proportion
        >of traffic is necessary, in the sense (for cars) that it could not
        >realistically
        >be transferred to alternative modes ? I would have thought such a survey
        >to be a
        >basic tool for those who want to make our environment more people-friendly. Or
        >has everyone with the resources to commission such a survey got sucked
        >into the
        >idea that the quality of life is improved by letting people make optional car
        >trips right up to the capacity of the road system ?
        >
        > Simon Norton
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >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
        >
        >
        >
        >


        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
      • Simon Norton
        I think that the key issue as far as developed societies are concerned is to link car sharing with car-free living. A certain proportion of new housing should
        Message 3 of 4 , Apr 18, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          I think that the key issue as far as developed societies are concerned is to
          link car sharing with car-free living.

          A certain proportion of new housing should be built without any facilities
          whatsoever for individual car ownership, except possibly the odd space or so
          that might be needed by people who move in and then achieve some kind of
          disability for which an individual car is the most appropriate solution. All
          other residents of these developments would rely on car sharing for access to
          private transport.

          Given that in the UK three major issues are the lack of affordable housing, the
          amount of countryside being eaten up by new developments, and the effects of the
          traffic they generate, we should surely take urgent steps to pursue such a
          policy which could tackle all three problems simultaneously.

          The provision of new car-free developments would go together with public
          transport improvements. This would provide a secure financial underpinning for
          rail network development and rural bus provision -- both sadly lacking at the
          moment.

          And, as I have already recommended for London, vehicles used in car sharing
          schemes could be offered discounts, denied to other local residents, on
          congestion charging schemes within the local area.

          Can Dave Wetzel let us know how his land tax proposals would relate to this
          policy ?

          Incidentally, as one who has never left the industrialised world, I would like
          to be enlightened as to the land use implications of rising car ownership in
          other countries, i.e. do motorists have problems finding somewhere to keep their
          cars ? Do they, perhaps, resort (not necessarily deliberately, but in a process
          which ends up that way) to driving poorer people into remote shanty towns so as
          to create space for garages ?

          Simon Norton
        • Wetzel Dave
          Happy to answer Simon s question put to me personally. The Land Value Tax (LVT) would apply to all sites, residential, commercial, agriculture, open space etc.
          Message 4 of 4 , Apr 21, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Happy to answer Simon's question put to me personally.

            The Land Value Tax (LVT) would apply to all sites, residential, commercial,
            agriculture, open space etc. e.g. not using a site that has permission for
            houses, a factory or offices to be built on it, would not be an excuse for
            avoiding the tax.

            The valuation of the land would be based upon the "optimum permitted use".
            This means that the valuation is dependent upon the market's demand to use
            the site and the community's decision on how that site may be used.
            e.g. If the site has permission only to be used as public open space, then
            the valuation would be zero and the tax liability would be zero. If, however
            the decision is that the same site should be used for offices of a certain
            size, then the valuation would depend on the market's need for offices, of
            that size and in that location. Close to a major road or rail station this
            value would be higher than a similar sized site, with the same permission
            but farther away from the transport (all other things being equal). However,
            if the site was up a mountain there would be no market value for offices and
            the site value would probably depend upon farming (Sheep grazing?) or
            tourism.

            So, in this instance:
            If society insists no or few car spaces on a residential development, this
            could affect the value of the site.

            Depending on the site's location, such a policy may increase or reduce the
            land value and hence the annual income from LVT.
            e.g. If the site is in the middle of nowhere and is not served by public
            transport, then a policy to restrict car use may deter buyers and reduce the
            land value. Of course this may be slightly offset by being able to provide
            more houses or for each house to be built with more rooms and/or bigger
            gardens (using the land which would otherwise have been used for car
            parking).

            However, if the site is in a town centre with excellent public transport,
            many bus routes and a station close by then the unwanted car parking space
            now available for development will probably mean that this site is worth
            more than a comparable sized site enjoying the same location benefits but
            also having to find space for car parking either on the surface or by
            building an underground car park at much greater expense.

            LVT is sometimes referred to as "The Smart Tax". If your land value goes up
            then you pay more but if it goes down then you pay less. Used well this
            could encourage better use of land. For example, a farm restricted to
            organic farming with higher costs and a reduced output is likely to produce
            lower rents than if it were used for intensive farming. The lower LVT could
            encourage farmers to switch.

            Similarly with housing policy. LVT would be payable on empty sites so the
            owners would have an incentive to build the houses. This would protect green
            land from urban sprawl and enable our towns and cities to work more
            efficiently. (20 on a bus instead of 10).

            I hope this helps but happy to forward more information to anyone requesting
            it from me personally.

            Dave

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

            Close to New Scotland Yard.
            Buses 11,24,148,211,N11 pass the door.
            Nearest Underground - St James's Park tube station.



            -----Original Message-----
            From: Simon Norton [mailto:s.norton@...]
            Sent: 18 April 2004 17:56
            To: worldtransport@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [WorldTransport Forum] car sharing


            I think that the key issue as far as developed societies are concerned is to
            link car sharing with car-free living.

            A certain proportion of new housing should be built without any facilities
            whatsoever for individual car ownership, except possibly the odd space or so
            that might be needed by people who move in and then achieve some kind of
            disability for which an individual car is the most appropriate solution. All
            other residents of these developments would rely on car sharing for access
            to
            private transport.

            Given that in the UK three major issues are the lack of affordable housing,
            the
            amount of countryside being eaten up by new developments, and the effects of
            the
            traffic they generate, we should surely take urgent steps to pursue such a
            policy which could tackle all three problems simultaneously.

            The provision of new car-free developments would go together with public
            transport improvements. This would provide a secure financial underpinning
            for
            rail network development and rural bus provision -- both sadly lacking at
            the
            moment.

            And, as I have already recommended for London, vehicles used in car sharing
            schemes could be offered discounts, denied to other local residents, on
            congestion charging schemes within the local area.

            Can Dave Wetzel let us know how his land tax proposals would relate to this
            policy ?

            Incidentally, as one who has never left the industrialised world, I would
            like
            to be enlightened as to the land use implications of rising car ownership in
            other countries, i.e. do motorists have problems finding somewhere to keep
            their
            cars ? Do they, perhaps, resort (not necessarily deliberately, but in a
            process
            which ends up that way) to driving poorer people into remote shanty towns so
            as
            to create space for garages ?

            Simon Norton





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