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

Re: travel differences

Expand Messages
  • Eric Bruun
    I think it is useful to disaggregate urban/suburban driving from intercity driving. If you do this, I think the statistics will show that continental Europe
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 11 3:09 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      I think it is useful to disaggregate urban/suburban driving from intercity
      driving. If you do this, I think the statistics will show that continental
      Europe has done much better at controlling urban driving than the UK, but
      has not succeeded in reducing intercity driving.

      As for Germany's exceptionally high fuel consumption, it is probably
      explained by the Autobahns -- driving at 200 kph consumes a lot of fuel.

      As for Britains much higher use of buses, my guess is that it is due to the
      very high fares on rail services in the UK. It is cheaper to take the
      airplane than rail, never mind the bus, between many cities in the UK.

      Eric Bruun

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Andrew Braddock" <ajb@...>
      To: "'Michael Schabas'" <michael@...>; "'Wetzel Dave'"
      <Davewetzel@...>; "'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport'"
      <sustran-discuss@...>; <diggers350@yahoogroups.com>;
      <NewMobility@yahoogroups.com>; <NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com>;
      <scurader@...>; "'UTSG'" <UTSG@...>;
      <WorldCarfreeDays@yahoogroups.com>; <WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com>;
      <WorldTransport-Focus@yahoogroups.com>; "'Yahoo! Groups Notification'"
      <notify@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 9:31 AM
      Subject: [sustran] Financing Transport Infrastructure through Land Value Tax



      If you talk to anyone who has been a regular user of public transport
      elsewhere in Europe they will tell you very firmly that it is far better
      than in the UK. Passengers in Manchester would be staggered if they had a
      system as good as Vienna or Zürich! There are, of course, a few exceptions
      - EG: London is pretty good and getting better (certainly in terms of
      surface public transport) and rural France or Spain has little outside of
      school buses.

      Andrew Braddock



      -----Original Message-----
      From: Michael Schabas [mailto:michael.schabas@...]
      Sent: 11 July 2004 10:41
      To: Wetzel Dave; Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport;
      diggers350@yahoogroups.com; NewMobility@yahoogroups.com;
      NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; scurader@...; UTSG;
      WorldCarfreeDays@yahoogroups.com; WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com;
      WorldTransport-Focus@yahoogroups.com; Yahoo! Groups Notification
      Cc: 'Andrew Braddock (ABOUT)'; 'Michael Schabas'
      Subject: Re: Financing Transport Infrastructure through Land Value Tax

      the short answer is that they don't mean much except that car usage in
      britain, germany and france is pretty similar. people drive a lot. There is
      no statistical basis (at least, not on this data) to support the view that
      french and german public transport systems are better than the british ones.

      lies, damned lies, and statistics.

      Michael@...
      mobile +44 7973 241 214 land +44 20 8442 0777

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Wetzel Dave" <Davewetzel@...>
      To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport"
      <sustran-discuss@...>; <diggers350@yahoogroups.com>;
      <NewMobility@yahoogroups.com>; <NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com>;
      <scurader@...>; "sustran discuss"
      <sustran-discuss@...>; "UTSG" <UTSG@...>;
      <WorldCarfreeDays@yahoogroups.com>; <WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com>;
      <WorldTransport-Focus@yahoogroups.com>; "Yahoo! Groups Notification"
      <notify@yahoogroups.com>
      Cc: "'Andrew Braddock (ABOUT)'" <ajb@...>; "'Michael Schabas'"
      <michael@...>
      Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 7:59 AM
      Subject: RE: Financing Transport Infrastructure through Land Value Tax


      > Any further explanation for these figures?
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Michael Schabas [mailto:michael.schabas@...]
      > Sent: 10 July 2004 22:26
      >
      > Subject: Re: Financing Transport Infrastructure through Land Value Tax
      >
      >
      > Found it: DfT provide data on car and taxi km, for EU states.
      >
      > France 6,700 km per person per year
      > Germany 6,510 kmpppy
      > UK 6,380 kmpppy
      >
      > Of course the English and Germans need to fly to get to the mediterranean,
      > whereas the french drive. But don't they also have a great railway
      system?
      >
      > Curious, UK bus mile is about double french and german figures. why?
      >
      >
      > Michael@...
      > mobile +44 7973 241 214 land +44 20 8442 0777
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "Michael Schabas" <michael.schabas@...>
      > Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2004 9:35 PM
      >
      > Subject: Re: Financing Transport Infrastructure through Land Value Tax
      >
      >
      > Can't find comparative statistics on car useage but see
      >
      >
      http://europe.eu.int/comm/dgs/energy_transport/figures/pocketbook/doc/tran_m
      > eans_road_2003.pdf
      >
      > Germany - 539 cars per 1,000 people
      > UK - 464 cars per 1,000 people
      >
      >
      >
      http://europe.eu.int/comm/dgs/energy_transport/figures/pocketbook/doc/etif_2
      > 003_down2.xls
      >
      > Final energy consumption - Transport (which includes rail)
      >
      > Germany 55.2 Mtoe
      > UK 38.7 Mtoe
      >
      > Mtoe = million tonnes oil equivalent
      >
      > So the Germans have 15% more cars and use about 30% more fuel for
      transport,
      > but drive less?
      >
      > Seems an interesting model to emulate!
      >
      > Michael@...
      > mobile +44 7973 241 214 land +44 20 8442 0777
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "Andrew Braddock" <ajb@...>
      > To: "'Michael Schabas'" <michael@...> Davewetzel@...>
      > Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2004 4:02 PM
      >
      > Subject: Financing Transport Infrastructure through Land Value Tax
      >
      >
      >
      > The Economist - not for the first time - is only 50% right.
      > Car ownership per head of population in Germany is higher than in the UK
      > (even after
      > re-unification) but car use is significantly lower. The difference is
      > much greater use of public transport, especially in urban areas. In
      > Switzerland, car ownership is higher still but use is lower than in
      Germany.
      > With
      > excellent public transport throughout the country, and fully-integrated
      > user-friendly
      > tariff partnerships across all modes, the Swiss practically live on their
      > trams, buses and trains!
      >
      > Andrew Braddock
      > A B O U T
      > 4 Borderside
      > YATELEY
      > GU46 6LJ
      >
      > T: 01252 876295
      > M: 07740 974167
      > F: 01252 879924
      > E: ajb@...
      > W: www.A-B-O-U-T.com
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Michael Schabas [mailto:michael.schabas@...]
      > Sent: 10 July 2004 11:52
      > To: ajb@...; 'Wetzel Dave'
      >
      > Subject: Re: Financing Transport Infrastructure through Land Value Tax
      >
      > My heart wants to agree with everyone but 1. the chances of adopting
      German
      > anything in the UK, at least related to fiscal matters, is close to zero.
      > Ask Gordon!
      > 2. according to data published last year in the economist, german car
      > ownership and usage is substantially higher than British (forget the
      > railway, have you seen their autobahns?). So I am not sure if it would
      > be such a good thing, either!
      >
      > Michael@...
      > mobile +44 7973 241 214 land +44 20 8442 0777
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "Andrew Braddock" <ajb@...>
      > To: "'Wetzel Dave'" <Davewetzel@...> <michael@...>
      > Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2004 11:30 AM
      >
      > Subject: Financing Transport Infrastructure through Land Value Tax
      >
      >
      >
      > Dave
      > Well said - the point about motoring costs falling in real terms is
      > absolutely crucial to the argument. We cannot go on with significant
      > above-inflation fares rises on bus and rail whilst the car gets
      > cheaper and cheaper. It is also essential that we adopt
      Swiss/German-style
      > pricing policies that make public transport cheaper for off peak family
      use
      > and engender a culture in which the tram, bus or train is the mode of
      > first choice and the car second. LVT can clearly provide the income to
      put
      > fares on a better-than-equal footing with motoring costs.
      >
      > Keep on fighting the good fight!
      >
      > Best regards,
      >
      > Andrew
      >
      >
      > Andrew Braddock
      > A B O U T
      > 4 Borderside
      > YATELEY
      > GU46 6LJ
      >
      > T: 01252 876295
      > M: 07740 974167
      > F: 01252 879924
      > E: ajb@...
      > W: www.A-B-O-U-T.com
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@...]
      > Sent: 10 July 2004 10:08
      > To: 'Michael Schabas'
      > Cc: 'Sam Mullins (LT Museum)'; Kiley Bob; Walder Jay; +TfL F&P Group
      > Business Planning
      > Subject: RE: Financing Transport Infrastructure through Land Value Tax
      >
      > Michael
      > I respect your views particularly because of your previous involvement
      > with
      > Canary Wharf, the JLE and Anglia Railways.
      >
      > The problem with owners of new transport funding from land purchases
      > and
      > sales is, like Development Land Taxes, S106 Planning Gain, Kate
      > Barker's
      > proposed "Planning Gain Supplement", TIFs, Stamp Duty etc. they all
      > capture
      > some land rent but unlike "Land Value Taxation" (LVT), they are just a
      > one-off hit.
      >
      > This is why fares revenue is so important and we continue to put fares
      > up
      > to
      > pay for public transport when at the same time motoring costs are
      > being
      > reduced with cheaper cars, more mpg and fuel pump prices since the
      > 1960s
      > not
      > even keeping up with inflation.
      >
      > As long as people want to use the trains, LVT gives a permanent
      > revenue
      > stream from which not only can the construction of a new line be
      > financed
      > but also contribute to its future maintenance and operating costs.
      > Just imagine what would happen to property rental values and land
      > prices
      > in
      > London if the Tube, buses and National Rail were all permantly closed
      down.
      > If we collected (only some of this wealth) locally and nationally,
      > there
      > would be no need to argue about PPP, PFIs, funding CrossRail, funding
      > new
      > high speed lines, bringing our railway maintenance up to modern
      > standards
      > and paying for better road safety!
      >
      >
      > Dave
      >
      > Dave Wetzel
      > Vice-chair,
      > Transport for London
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Michael Schabas [mailto:michael.schabas@...]
      > Sent: 09 July 2004 22:58
      > To: Wetzel Dave
      > Subject: Re: Financing Transport Infrastructure through Land Value Tax
      >
      >
      > yes - property was a good earner. but the railway still made its
      > money from fares.
      >
      >
      > Michael@...
      > mobile +44 7973 241 214 land +44 20 8442 0777
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "Wetzel Dave" <Davewetzel@...>
      > To: "'Michael Schabas'" <michael@...>
      > Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 9:20 PM
      > Subject: RE: Financing Transport Infrastructure through Land Value Tax
      >
      >
      > Michael
      > They developed nine estates along the line at places like Wembley Park
      > and
      > Pinner as well as Chiltern Court over
      > Baker Street Station.
      >
      > Dave
      >
      > Dave Wetzel
      > Vice-chair,
      > Transport for London
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Michael Schabas [mailto:michael.schabas@...]
      > Sent: 08 July 2004 15:29
      > To: Wetzel Dave; Cohen Arnold (Exc)
      > Cc: Georgeson Neil
      > Subject: Re: Financing Transport Infrastructure through Land Value Tax
      >
      > I think there is abit of a myth - MEPC was set up by the Metropolitan line
      > to develop surplus lands, but they never were able to acquire vast tracts
      > of property. Mostly, the railway was financed from passenger fares, not
      > property revenues.
      >
      > As should be Crossrail. The right scheme can generate large operating
      > surpluses.
      >
      > I am all for LVT, but there is no reason it should just be applied around
      > new railways. It should replace other less efficient taxes and be used
      > to fund general expenditure.
      > Michael@...
      > mobile +44 7973 241 214 land +44 20 8442 0777
      >
      >
      >
      ****************************************************************************
      *******
      > 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.