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

car sharing

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 4 , Apr 18, 2004
      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 2 of 4 , Apr 21, 2004
        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.