From geobpa at nus.edu.sg Fri May 9 15:58:27 2003 From: geobpa at nus.edu.sg (Paul Barter) Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 14:58:27 +0800 Subject: [sustran] FW: BOUNCE global taboo header - CAR BUSTERS bulletin #46 Message-ID: <0709A702109DA844B290CEAA959078BD7EC2E6@MBXSRV04.stf.nus.edu.sg> From: "Car Busters - Editors" To: carbusters_bulletin_eng@lists.riseup.net Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 18:02:30 +0200 Subject: [carbusters_bulletin_eng] CAR BUSTERS MONTHLY E-BULLETIN #46 _________________________ CAR BUSTERS BULLETIN >>> ____________________________________ Edition no. 46 - May 2003 - English version ............................................................. Contents: BOXERS AND BRIEFS WORLD NEWS - SEOUL TO RAZE ELEVATED HIGHWAY, REVITALISE CITY CENTRE - NORWEGIAN WORKERS OFFERED CASH TO GET ON THEIR BIKES - STRIP-SEARCHED BICYCLISTS RIDE OFF WITH $2.75 MILLION - CRITICAL MASS IN SAO PAULO, BRAZIL ANNOUNCEMENTS - CAR-FREE ECOVILLAGES LISTSERVE LAUNCHED - AUGUST ECOTOPIA GATHERING TO BE HELD IN UKRAINE CAR BUSTERS ANNOUNCEMENTS - WORLD CAR-FREE DAYS 2003 INPUT SOUGHT - NEW NETWORK DISCUSSION LISTSERVE LAUNCHED - CAR BUSTERS PONDERS SECOND NAME - TOWARDS CAR-FREE CITIES IV IN BERLIN IN 2004? DISCLAIMER BOXERS & BRIEFS - The way cities and suburbs are designed could be bad for your health, according to this April 23 article in The USA Today: . Titled "Walk Can't Walk," the article basically affirms what we argued in Car Busters magazine #16. - On April 5, The New York Times ran an article titled "In Their Hummers, Right Beside Uncle Sam." The report documents post-war enthusiasm for the gas-guzzling, militaristic vehicle. For example: "When I turn on the TV, I see wall-to-wall Humvees, and I'm proud... I'm proud of my country, and I'm proud to be driving a product that is making a significant contribution." It reads like satire, but it's actually true! See . - Meanwhile, the US environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council () recently released TV ads calling for SUVs (sport-utility vehicles, or 4x4s) with 40-mpg (5.9 litres/100 km) fuel economy "that will take America to work in the morning, without taking it to war in the afternoon." The problem is that Detroit apparently doesn't want to build those... At the recent New York International Auto Show, it was announced that sport-utility vehicles, pickups and minivans now make up 50% of US vehicle sales. The vehicles on sale in the US this year are the heaviest vehicles on record since World War II. - And finally... "Bush Comes Clean: It Was About Oil": An editorial by Tedd Rall at . _______________ WORLD NEWS >> __________________ SEOUL TO RAZE ELEVATED HIGHWAY, REVITALISE CITY CENTRE [from ITDP's Sustainable Transport E-Update, ] Fulfilling a central campaign promise, Seoul Mayor Lee Mung-Bak is moving forward with the restoration of a downtown riverfront' tearing down an elevated highway and building a Bus Rapid Transit corridor. In office for only two months, Mayor Lee has wasted little time in announcing a new vision for Seoul and taking steps to see it to fruition. The cornerstone of this dramatic new vision is the restoration of the Cheonggyecheon, an 84-metre wide river running through central Seoul's Dongdaemun district. Once the center of a diverse urban landscape, the river was gradually polluted with a toxic mix of chemicals. Then, between 1958 and 1978, it was covered with concrete and the city built the Cheonggyechen elevated highway over it. The highway cuts through the centre of Seoul and has long diminished the quality of life for residents of South Korea's capital. Mayor Lee will take down the six-lane highway, decontaminate the Cheonggyecheon and create a park and wide pedestrian corridor on the shores of the river in its place. The destruction of the Cheongguecheon highway is part of Mr. Lee's redevelopment strategy for the entire area north of the Han River, which he hopes will become Seoul's economic, cultural and environmental center. To replace the 120,000 cars that use the corridor daily, the city broke ground on its first formal Bus Rapid Transit line on March 13, which will serve the route. Mayor Lee is aiming to complete the 14.5 km corridor by June to coincide with the freeway's closing. See the above web page for before/after photos and further details. NORWEGIAN WORKERS OFFERED CASH TO GET ON THEIR BIKES [from Reuters, May 6] Norwegian workers are being offered cash incentives to get on their bikes as part of a government drive to encourage pedal power and cut car use. The scheme, which also aims to boost fitness, started on May 5 in parts of the country and will pay municipal employees about US$0.40 for every kilometre they cycle while on business. "We want healthier employees and less sickness absence," Hans Ivar Soemme, leader of a "Healthy City" project at Sandnes municipality in southwest Norway, told Reuters. He said he did not know of any similar schemes elsewhere in the world. Workers will get US$0.43 for each kilometre they ride up to a maximum journey of 5 kilometres. The ride to and from work will not count. Meanwhile, an estimated 75,000 Norwegians rode their bikes to work on May 5 to mark the annual "Bicycle to Work" campaign, many stopping for a free breakfast organized along cycle paths. As part of a drive to make Norway's 4.5 million people healthier, the country will be the first in the world to outlaw smoking in bars and restaurants nationwide in 2004. STRIP-SEARCHED BICYCLISTS RIDE OFF WITH $2.75 MILLION [from the Washington Post, March 30] In the summer of 2000, during the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles, the police were out in force, making parts of downtown seem like a city preparing for a siege. Some people applauded the no- nonsense tactics for preserving law and order. But critics charged that the cops went way overboard. In one of the most controversial incidents, Los Angeles police arrested 71 cyclists who were staging a rolling rally to call attention to alternative modes of transportation and the creation of a more bike-friendly nation. Police said the cyclists were busted because they pedaled the wrong way down one-way streets, whizzing through traffic lights and frightening pedestrians. (But the cyclists say they were riding as mellow as could be, along with a police escort.) But then things got weird. While in jail, Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputies ordered 23 of the female cyclists to strip and subjected them to visual body cavity searches. In California, it is a no-no to strip-search people charged with simple misdemeanors. So last week, the L.A. Board of Supervisors agreed to settle a lawsuit brought by the cyclists for $2.75 million - that's $70,000 each for the 23 women and $5,000 each for the 48 men. CRITICAL MASS IN SAO PAULO, BRAZIL [submitted by Joao Campos, ] With seven million vehicles, daily trafic jams of 100 km and average drive speed of 25 kmh, moving around in S?o Paulo increasingly requires the use of bikes. Here a monthly event named Bicicletada, (www.bicicletada.org), a brazilian version of Critical Mass, has been held since June 2002. The cyclists of S?o Paulo take to the streets every last Saturday of the month to vindicate the right to use the streets and the obeying of traffic laws that guarantee safety and respect to the cyclist. Due to the negligence of the public powers when dealing with the use of bikes, the cyclists of S?o Paulo chose a direct action close to drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. During the protests the manifestants use anti-pollution masks and give away leaflets that explain the benefits of using the bike and orient the drivers to share the streets with bikers. _____________________ ANNOUNCEMENTS >> _____________________________ CAR-FREE ECOVILLAGES LISTSERVE LAUNCHED [submitted by Francois Schneider ] Hello dear friends: Following the Towards Car-Free Cities III conference in Prague we are starting a new discussion listserve on the idea of car-free ecovillages. We wish to explore visions of ecovillages car-free and free of car dependency and share experiences and solutions. The list would also serve as support for the practical set-up of one or more ecovillages in Europe or elsewhere. Would you be interested to explore this idea? Please pass on the message people potentially interested. Subscribe by sending an e-mail to . AUGUST ECOTOPIA GATHERING TO BE HELD IN UKRAINE Ecotopia is the biggest international environmental gathering in Europe. It has been held for over 13 years, each year in a different country and hosted by a local grassroots environmental organisation within the EYFA (European Youth for Action) network. This year it will be held from Aug. 20-Sept. 3 in Sheshory, Ukraine, hosted by Green Dossier. For those that have the time, a bike tour to Ecotopia across Poland and Western Ukraine is organised for a few weeks preceding the gathering. See for more information. _________________________________ CAR BUSTERS ANNOUNCEMENTS >> __________________________________ WORLD CAR-FREE DAYS 2003 INPUT SOUGHT We are currently seeking comment - through listserve, bulletin, and e- mail discussions - on the shape of the World Car-Free Days 2003 programme. We will be able to provide dates and other details on our website by Monday, May 19. The question is whether to have a September 13-26 two-week programme, or to focus on a September 22 World Car-Free Day. In particular we are seeking response from the European Union, United Nations and others on a proposal drafted at the Towards Car-Free Cities III conference (). Comments?: info@carbusters.org or on the following listserve: NEW NETWORK DISCUSSION LISTSERVE LAUNCHED Replacing the Towards Car-Free Cities III listserve is carfree_network@lists.riseup.net - a list dedicated to discussing/organising current and future projects of the Car Busters network and the global car-free movement. The list, launched April 27, is open to anyone working for alternatives to the automobile and car culture. Those interested in getting more involved in the Car Busters network are especially encouraged to join. To subscribe, just send an e-mail to carfree_network-subscribe@lists.riseup.net. CAR BUSTERS PONDERS SECOND NAME We at Car Busters Central have realised that some occasions call for a name that sounds more serious, respectable and official than Car Busters. It was decided at the Towards Car-Free Cities III conference that we would therefore adopt a second name (in addition to, not replacing, Car Busters). Suggested titles so far include Carfree Futures Network, The Carfree Network, Carfree International and Alliance for Carfree Environments (ACE). We would like to solicit your name suggestions as well. We'll even offer a prize (as well as fame and glory) to the person who submits the winning name. Please send them on in by June 1. TOWARDS CAR-FREE CITIES IV IN BERLIN IN 2004? At the very successful and productive Towards Car-Free Cities III conference in Prague (March 17-22), it was decided that, in order to develop and maintain the Car Busters network, it is necessary to have an annual meeting. The next conference, Towards Car-Free Cities IV, will be held in July 2004. So far the only proposal to host it comes from Berlin, where two people are already researching funding sources and facilities. Serious proposals for holding the conference elsewhere than Berlin are accepted up until June 1 on the carfree_network@lists.riseup.net listserve (see above). Guidelines, so that you can make a proper pitch, will be e-mailed to those who express interest in hosting the event. As for Towards Car-Free Cities V in 2005, there is already a proposal from the good people of Budapest. ___________________ DISCLAIMER >> __________________ And while you're out SUV-proofing your car-free ecovillage or chipping away at a Korean elevated motorway, don't forget to heed the wise words of International Hummer Owners Group (I.H.O.G.) founder Rick Schmidt: "Those who deface a Hummer in words or deed deface the American flag and what it stands for." [end] ____________________________________________ CAR BUSTERS Kratka 26, 100 00 Praha 10, Czech Republic tel: +(420) 274-810-849 - fax: +(420) 274-816-727 - ____________________________________________ Car Busters Worldwide Contact Directory Register your group on-line now: From townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au Mon May 12 15:03:33 2003 From: townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au (Craig Townsend) Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 14:03:33 +0800 Subject: [sustran] World Bank LA papers In-Reply-To: <001a01c2f48d$399dbc80$335879a5@earthlink.net> References: <0709A702109DA844B290CEAA959078BD5EE440@MBXSRV04.stf.nus.edu.sg> <001a01c2f48d$399dbc80$335879a5@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <1052719413.3ebf3935d1934@wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au> Dear sustran-discussers, Recently a couple of papers on Latin American cities were added to the World Bank site, and I thought they may be of interest to some sustran-discussers: Potential Impact of Metro's Line 4 on Poverty in the S?o Paulo Metropolitan Region (SPMR). M?rcia Barone and Jorge Rebelo, 2003. This document is a good example of potential impacts on poverty in urban transport. http://www.worldbank.org/transport/urbtrans/poverty_14_sp.pdf Basic Busway Data in Latin America, Jorge M. Rebelo, February 2003. Operating data for a number of exclusive (fully segregated), non-exclusive and mixed busway corridors in 3 cities (S?o Paulo, Curitiba and Porto Alegre). http://www.worldbank.org/transport/urbtrans/pub_tr/bus_data.pdf Best wishes, Craig Townsend From karl at dnet.net.id Fri May 23 18:05:54 2003 From: karl at dnet.net.id (Karl Fjellstrom) Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 16:05:54 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: Land Value Taxation Event 23/04/03 In-Reply-To: <1050379088.3e9b83500f8cd@wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au> Message-ID: <000201c3210a$8873b5e0$ce0210ac@KFOffice> Dear Paul & Craig, sorry for the delayed response. Bogota implemented a value capture scheme along the TransMilenio (www.transmilenio.gov.co) lines which was apparently (according to the Mayor of the time) successful in recouping some of the windfall gains which accrued to land ownwers along the TransMilenio route. This value capture is an important part of the funding arrangement for the ongoing expansion of the system. The COO of Bangkok's Skytrain system in March gave a presentation to the Thai-German Chamber of Commerce where he outlined major increases in property values in proximity to the Skytrain stations; especially for commercial premises like shopping malls. Responding to a question, he said however that there was no plan for any kind of tax/charge to capture the windfall gains to the owners of these premises, but that they to some extent capture these gains by imposing charges for the commercial premises to establish walkway connections to the Skytrain stations. Similarly in Brisbane, when it is proposed to the transit officials express strong interest in some form of value capture to fund system expansion, though nothing like that has been implemented there. What's the catch? Here's my conspiracy theory: there is often an incredible dearth of transparency and open debate surrounding all issues of mass transit system cost, especially when it comes to rail metros. It's only when there is no financial black hole to hide, such as in Bogota's bus rapid transit system, that you might see these options openly canvassed. (Political commitment helps too, of course...) Regards Karl Fjellstrom -----Original Message----- From: owner-sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org [mailto:owner-sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org] On Behalf Of Craig Townsend Sent: Tuesday, 15 April 2003 10:58 AM To: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: Land Value Taxation Event 23/04/03 Dear Paul, I can tell you that in Thailand, land ownership is concentrated in the hands of a very rich elite which tends to be exempt from taxation and often holds powerful positions. In Bangkok, there is no land valuation based on market values, and no progressive land tax. Transport infrastructure projects become a way of increasing private land values and private wealth. The lack of accurate information about land values (and bubble real estate market) contributed to the financial crisis that began in 1997 and spread to neighbouring countries. The World Bank attempted to build land valuation capacity in Thailand in the wake of the crisis: I'm not sure if it was successful, but I doubt it. These matters are more political than technical. I would be interested to hear whether land value taxation exists in any other low or middle income cities. What about in Jakarta and KL? Craig Quoting Paul Barter : > Dear sustran-discussers > Any thoughts on this topic of using land value taxation to help fund > transport infrastructure below as it might apply in low-income or > middle-income contexts? Does anyone know of successful cases in Asia > or Latin America (or anywhere for that matter)? What's the catch? Paul From ericbruun at earthlink.net Sat May 24 00:19:35 2003 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 11:19:35 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: Land Value Taxation Event 23/04/03 References: <000201c3210a$8873b5e0$ce0210ac@KFOffice> Message-ID: <002901c3213e$b9699820$b65b79a5@earthlink.net> I want to point out that in some places, public transport agencies are specfically not allowed to use land value capture. It would take changes in laws first. Secondly, the lack of transparency about costs for public transport projects is certainly not true in the US. The Federal government requires all kinds of documentation about local/state contributions and about future operating cost supports for public transport projects before it contributes. This is then used by the highway lobby to point out how expensive public transport is. But the truth is that there is no matching requirement for highway projects, especially not about the operating and maintenance costs. This is good for the highway lobby, because much of the operating support comes from property taxes and general taxation, not from user taxes. Eric Bruun ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karl Fjellstrom" To: Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 5:05 AM Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: Land Value Taxation Event 23/04/03 > Dear Paul & Craig, sorry for the delayed response. > > Bogota implemented a value capture scheme along the TransMilenio > (www.transmilenio.gov.co) lines which was apparently (according to the > Mayor of the time) successful in recouping some of the windfall gains > which accrued to land ownwers along the TransMilenio route. This value > capture is an important part of the funding arrangement for the ongoing > expansion of the system. > > The COO of Bangkok's Skytrain system in March gave a presentation to the > Thai-German Chamber of Commerce where he outlined major increases in > property values in proximity to the Skytrain stations; especially for > commercial premises like shopping malls. Responding to a question, he > said however that there was no plan for any kind of tax/charge to > capture the windfall gains to the owners of these premises, but that > they to some extent capture these gains by imposing charges for the > commercial premises to establish walkway connections to the Skytrain > stations. > > Similarly in Brisbane, when it is proposed to the transit officials > express strong interest in some form of value capture to fund system > expansion, though nothing like that has been implemented there. What's > the catch? Here's my conspiracy theory: there is often an incredible > dearth of transparency and open debate surrounding all issues of mass > transit system cost, especially when it comes to rail metros. It's only > when there is no financial black hole to hide, such as in Bogota's bus > rapid transit system, that you might see these options openly canvassed. > (Political commitment helps too, of course...) > > Regards > Karl Fjellstrom > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org > [mailto:owner-sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org] On Behalf Of Craig > Townsend > Sent: Tuesday, 15 April 2003 10:58 AM > To: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org > Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: Land Value Taxation Event 23/04/03 > > > Dear Paul, > > I can tell you that in Thailand, land ownership is concentrated in the > hands of a very rich elite which tends to be exempt from taxation and > often > holds powerful positions. In Bangkok, there is no land valuation based > on > market values, and no progressive land tax. Transport infrastructure > projects > become a way of increasing private land values and private wealth. The > lack of > accurate information about land values (and bubble real estate market) > contributed to the financial crisis that began in 1997 and spread to > neighbouring countries. The World Bank attempted to build land valuation > > capacity in Thailand in the wake of the crisis: I'm not sure if it was > successful, but I doubt it. These matters are more political than > technical. I > would be interested to hear whether land value taxation exists in any > other > low or middle income cities. What about in Jakarta and KL? > > Craig > > > Quoting Paul Barter : > > > Dear sustran-discussers > > Any thoughts on this topic of using land value taxation to help fund > > transport infrastructure below as it might apply in low-income or > > middle-income contexts? Does anyone know of successful cases in Asia > > or Latin America (or anywhere for that matter)? What's the catch? Paul > > > > From townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au Sun May 25 06:22:43 2003 From: townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au (Craig Townsend) Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 05:22:43 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: Land Value Taxation Event 23/04/03 In-Reply-To: <002901c3213e$b9699820$b65b79a5@earthlink.net> References: <000201c3210a$8873b5e0$ce0210ac@KFOffice> <002901c3213e$b9699820$b65b79a5@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <1053811363.3ecfe2a3bd652@wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au> Eric makes good points about the US. Similarly, in Canadian cities the level of transparency surrounding mass public transport projects (usually rail) is very high. Costs of public transport projects and operations are the subject of a high level of public scrutiny and debate. There is a big debate going on now in Vancouver about a proposed rail line, and due to extensive news coverage anyone who reads the newspaper has a good understanding of the costs involved and the various debates surrounding the project: e.g. see today's Vancouver Sun newspaper http://www.canada.com/vancouver/story.asp? id=30BD1DF4-E7CC-42BD-AA5C-D3D310ACF9E0). The level of transparency surrounding road projects is typically much lower. One point that I would like to make about value capture is that it is worth clarifying who is capturing value. A form of indirect value capture by government (and hence in theory all sectors of society) from transport infrastructure improvements does occur in Australia because the improvements raise the market value of adjacent lands. Those increases are reflected in the level of property assessment and will result in more tax revenue to the government. The situation is different in Bangkok where there are only small administrative charges on land owners, but no taxation based on assessed market value. The Bangkok Transit System is a privately owned and operated rail rapid transit system. The owners of the system make deals with other corporations, businesspeople, and landowners to mutually increase their revenue, but government institutions are not really involved. Craig Townsend Quoting Eric Bruun : > > I want to point out that in some places, public transport agencies are > specfically not allowed to use land value capture. It would take changes in > laws first. > > Secondly, the lack of transparency about costs for public transport projects > is certainly not true in the US. The Federal government requires all kinds > of documentation about local/state contributions and about future operating > cost supports for public transport projects before it contributes. This is > then used by the highway lobby to point out how expensive public transport > is. But the truth is that there is no matching requirement for highway > projects, especially not about the operating and maintenance costs. This is > good for the highway lobby, because much of the operating support comes from > property taxes and general taxation, not from user taxes. > > Eric Bruun > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Karl Fjellstrom" > To: > Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 5:05 AM > Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: Land Value Taxation Event 23/04/03 > > > > Dear Paul & Craig, sorry for the delayed response. > > > > Bogota implemented a value capture scheme along the TransMilenio > > (www.transmilenio.gov.co) lines which was apparently (according to the > > Mayor of the time) successful in recouping some of the windfall gains > > which accrued to land ownwers along the TransMilenio route. This value > > capture is an important part of the funding arrangement for the ongoing > > expansion of the system. > > > > The COO of Bangkok's Skytrain system in March gave a presentation to the > > Thai-German Chamber of Commerce where he outlined major increases in > > property values in proximity to the Skytrain stations; especially for > > commercial premises like shopping malls. Responding to a question, he > > said however that there was no plan for any kind of tax/charge to > > capture the windfall gains to the owners of these premises, but that > > they to some extent capture these gains by imposing charges for the > > commercial premises to establish walkway connections to the Skytrain > > stations. > > > > Similarly in Brisbane, when it is proposed to the transit officials > > express strong interest in some form of value capture to fund system > > expansion, though nothing like that has been implemented there. What's > > the catch? Here's my conspiracy theory: there is often an incredible > > dearth of transparency and open debate surrounding all issues of mass > > transit system cost, especially when it comes to rail metros. It's only > > when there is no financial black hole to hide, such as in Bogota's bus > > rapid transit system, that you might see these options openly canvassed. > > (Political commitment helps too, of course...) > > > > Regards > > Karl Fjellstrom From karl at dnet.net.id Mon May 26 12:41:44 2003 From: karl at dnet.net.id (Karl Fjellstrom) Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 10:41:44 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: Land Value Taxation Event 23/04/03 In-Reply-To: <1053811363.3ecfe2a3bd652@wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au> Message-ID: <001501c32338$bd5ac890$240310ac@KFOffice> Thanks for the updates & interesting information on the US. The 'lack of transparency' I was referring to is about mass transit options. Transparency may be much greater in the US but even there, when policy-makers (or was it a referendum) approve spending $180 million per km on a metro rail system in Washington, are they really exploring all available options in a transparent manner? Lack of transparency often means a lack of information about how public money is being used. A good example is the comment below that 'government institutions are not really involved' in the Bangkok Skytrain. If only ... In fact, the government is paying for the infrastructure for Skytrain extensions; 2km to open next year and a further 17.2km approved. It's probably only through the ongoing intimate involvement of the government that the system is still operating, as it has never covered its operating expenses plus interest costs. Even if there were perfect transparency, however, it's true that the interests of powerful landowners - as described below - would probably keep something like value capture off the political agenda anyway, at least in Bangkok. Regards, Karl Fjellstrom -----Original Message----- From: owner-sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org [mailto:owner-sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org] On Behalf Of Craig Townsend Sent: Sunday, 25 May 2003 4:23 AM To: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: Land Value Taxation Event 23/04/03 Eric makes good points about the US. Similarly, in Canadian cities the level of transparency surrounding mass public transport projects (usually rail) is very high. Costs of public transport projects and operations are the subject of a high level of public scrutiny and debate. There is a big debate going on now in Vancouver about a proposed rail line, and due to extensive news coverage anyone who reads the newspaper has a good understanding of the costs involved and the various debates surrounding the project: e.g. see today's Vancouver Sun newspaper http://www.canada.com/vancouver/story.asp? id=30BD1DF4-E7CC-42BD-AA5C-D3D310ACF9E0). The level of transparency surrounding road projects is typically much lower. One point that I would like to make about value capture is that it is worth clarifying who is capturing value. A form of indirect value capture by government (and hence in theory all sectors of society) from transport infrastructure improvements does occur in Australia because the improvements raise the market value of adjacent lands. Those increases are reflected in the level of property assessment and will result in more tax revenue to the government. The situation is different in Bangkok where there are only small administrative charges on land owners, but no taxation based on assessed market value. The Bangkok Transit System is a privately owned and operated rail rapid transit system. The owners of the system make deals with other corporations, businesspeople, and landowners to mutually increase their revenue, but government institutions are not really involved. Craig Townsend Quoting Eric Bruun : > > I want to point out that in some places, public transport agencies are > specfically not allowed to use land value capture. It would take > changes in laws first. > > Secondly, the lack of transparency about costs for public transport > projects is certainly not true in the US. The Federal government > requires all kinds of documentation about local/state contributions > and about future operating cost supports for public transport projects > before it contributes. This is then used by the highway lobby to point > out how expensive public transport is. But the truth is that there is > no matching requirement for highway projects, especially not about the > operating and maintenance costs. This is good for the highway lobby, > because much of the operating support comes from property taxes and > general taxation, not from user taxes. > > Eric Bruun > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Karl Fjellstrom" > To: > Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 5:05 AM > Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: Land Value Taxation Event 23/04/03 > > > > Dear Paul & Craig, sorry for the delayed response. > > > > Bogota implemented a value capture scheme along the TransMilenio > > (www.transmilenio.gov.co) lines which was apparently (according to > > the Mayor of the time) successful in recouping some of the windfall > > gains which accrued to land ownwers along the TransMilenio route. > > This value capture is an important part of the funding arrangement > > for the ongoing expansion of the system. > > > > The COO of Bangkok's Skytrain system in March gave a presentation to > > the Thai-German Chamber of Commerce where he outlined major > > increases in property values in proximity to the Skytrain stations; > > especially for commercial premises like shopping malls. Responding > > to a question, he said however that there was no plan for any kind > > of tax/charge to capture the windfall gains to the owners of these > > premises, but that they to some extent capture these gains by > > imposing charges for the commercial premises to establish walkway > > connections to the Skytrain stations. > > > > Similarly in Brisbane, when it is proposed to the transit officials > > express strong interest in some form of value capture to fund system > > expansion, though nothing like that has been implemented there. > > What's the catch? Here's my conspiracy theory: there is often an > > incredible dearth of transparency and open debate surrounding all > > issues of mass transit system cost, especially when it comes to rail > > metros. It's only when there is no financial black hole to hide, > > such as in Bogota's bus rapid transit system, that you might see > > these options openly canvassed. (Political commitment helps too, of > > course...) > > > > Regards > > Karl Fjellstrom From townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au Mon May 26 16:56:53 2003 From: townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au (Craig Townsend) Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 15:56:53 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: Land Value Taxation Event 23/04/03 In-Reply-To: <001501c32338$bd5ac890$240310ac@KFOffice> References: <001501c32338$bd5ac890$240310ac@KFOffice> Message-ID: <1053935813.3ed1c8c510689@wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au> Karl, I haven't kept up with the recent details concerning the extensions to the BTS and other issues regarding government support to Bangkok's rail systems under construction. From your comments, it sounds like the Government of Thailand is now providing financial support to the BTSC: an operating subsidy or help with debt servicing?. Could you or anyone else provide me with some details (e.g. cost, financing, government agencies involved)? It would probably be best if you reply to me personally (townsend@central.murdoch.edu.au), rather than through Sustran, and would be much appreciated. Thanks. Craig Quoting Karl Fjellstrom : > Thanks for the updates & interesting information on the US. > > The 'lack of transparency' I was referring to is about mass transit > options. Transparency may be much greater in the US but even there, when > policy-makers (or was it a referendum) approve spending $180 million per > km on a metro rail system in Washington, are they really exploring all > available options in a transparent manner? > > Lack of transparency often means a lack of information about how public > money is being used. A good example is the comment below that > 'government institutions are not really involved' in the Bangkok > Skytrain. If only ... In fact, the government is paying for the > infrastructure for Skytrain extensions; 2km to open next year and a > further 17.2km approved. It's probably only through the ongoing intimate > involvement of the government that the system is still operating, as it > has never covered its operating expenses plus interest costs. > > Even if there were perfect transparency, however, it's true that the > interests of powerful landowners - as described below - would probably > keep something like value capture off the political agenda anyway, at > least in Bangkok. > > Regards, Karl Fjellstrom > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org > [mailto:owner-sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org] On Behalf Of Craig > Townsend > Sent: Sunday, 25 May 2003 4:23 AM > To: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org > Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: Land Value Taxation Event 23/04/03 > > > Eric makes good points about the US. Similarly, in Canadian cities the > level > of transparency surrounding mass public transport projects (usually > rail) is > very high. Costs of public transport projects and operations are the > subject > of a high level of public scrutiny and debate. There is a big debate > going on > now in Vancouver about a proposed rail line, and due to extensive news > coverage anyone who reads the newspaper has a good understanding of the > costs > involved and the various debates surrounding the project: e.g. see > today's > Vancouver Sun newspaper http://www.canada.com/vancouver/story.asp? > id=30BD1DF4-E7CC-42BD-AA5C-D3D310ACF9E0). The level of transparency > surrounding road projects is typically much lower. > > One point that I would like to make about value capture is that it is > worth > clarifying who is capturing value. A form of indirect value capture by > government (and hence in theory all sectors of society) from transport > infrastructure improvements does occur in Australia because the > improvements > raise the market value of adjacent lands. Those increases are reflected > in the > level of property assessment and will result in more tax revenue to the > government. The situation is different in Bangkok where there are only > small > administrative charges on land owners, but no taxation based on assessed > > market value. The Bangkok Transit System is a privately owned and > operated > rail rapid transit system. The owners of the system make deals with > other > corporations, businesspeople, and landowners to mutually increase their > revenue, but government institutions are not really involved. > > Craig Townsend > > Quoting Eric Bruun : > > > > > I want to point out that in some places, public transport agencies are > > specfically not allowed to use land value capture. It would take > > changes in laws first. > > > > Secondly, the lack of transparency about costs for public transport > > projects is certainly not true in the US. The Federal government > > requires all kinds of documentation about local/state contributions > > and about future operating cost supports for public transport projects > > > before it contributes. This is then used by the highway lobby to point > > > out how expensive public transport is. But the truth is that there is > > no matching requirement for highway projects, especially not about the > > > operating and maintenance costs. This is good for the highway lobby, > > because much of the operating support comes from property taxes and > > general taxation, not from user taxes. > > > > Eric Bruun > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Karl Fjellstrom" > > To: > > Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 5:05 AM > > Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: Land Value Taxation Event 23/04/03 > > > > > > > Dear Paul & Craig, sorry for the delayed response. > > > > > > Bogota implemented a value capture scheme along the TransMilenio > > > (www.transmilenio.gov.co) lines which was apparently (according to > > > the Mayor of the time) successful in recouping some of the windfall > > > gains which accrued to land ownwers along the TransMilenio route. > > > This value capture is an important part of the funding arrangement > > > for the ongoing expansion of the system. > > > > > > The COO of Bangkok's Skytrain system in March gave a presentation to > > > the Thai-German Chamber of Commerce where he outlined major > > > increases in property values in proximity to the Skytrain stations; > > > especially for commercial premises like shopping malls. Responding > > > to a question, he said however that there was no plan for any kind > > > of tax/charge to capture the windfall gains to the owners of these > > > premises, but that they to some extent capture these gains by > > > imposing charges for the commercial premises to establish walkway > > > connections to the Skytrain stations. > > > > > > Similarly in Brisbane, when it is proposed to the transit officials > > > express strong interest in some form of value capture to fund system > > > > expansion, though nothing like that has been implemented there. > > > What's the catch? Here's my conspiracy theory: there is often an > > > incredible dearth of transparency and open debate surrounding all > > > issues of mass transit system cost, especially when it comes to rail > > > > metros. It's only when there is no financial black hole to hide, > > > such as in Bogota's bus rapid transit system, that you might see > > > these options openly canvassed. (Political commitment helps too, of > > > course...) > > > > > > Regards > > > Karl Fjellstrom > > > From ericbruun at earthlink.net Tue May 27 02:25:26 2003 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 13:25:26 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Skytrain References: <001501c32338$bd5ac890$240310ac@KFOffice> <1053935813.3ed1c8c510689@wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au> Message-ID: <003d01c323ab$d0e5b280$8f5f79a5@earthlink.net> Karl 1) Actually, many of us are vitally interested in how the finances of the SkyTrain are doing. It is an extremely important issue, since privately financed proposals are being presented around the world. I too would appreciate some information. 2) You are right about the lack of transparency in decision making in the US (and Canada). There are some decisions begin made which are clearly to the benefit of special interests and disregard more urgent investments with better return-on-investment to the public at large. For example, the Blue Line extention of the Washington, DC Metro cost $400 Million for only a couple of miles and seems to be largely for the benefit of the professional sports stadium owners. Meanwhile, a short light-rail line for the same cost would close the U of the Red Line and address far more significant needs. Same in Pittsburgh. There is a $300 Million tunnel under a river which goes to the pro sports stadiums and then stops. If one is going to spend the money on a tunnel, then the incremental benefit to cost ratio is very high to extend it further into other communities. Eric Bruun ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Townsend" To: Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 3:56 AM Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: Land Value Taxation Event 23/04/03 > Karl, > > I haven't kept up with the recent details concerning the extensions to the BTS > and other issues regarding government support to Bangkok's rail systems under > construction. From your comments, it sounds like the Government of Thailand is > now providing financial support to the BTSC: an operating subsidy or help with > debt servicing?. Could you or anyone else provide me with some details (e.g. > cost, financing, government agencies involved)? It would probably be best if > you reply to me personally (townsend@central.murdoch.edu.au), rather than > through Sustran, and would be much appreciated. Thanks. > > Craig > > Quoting Karl Fjellstrom : > > > Thanks for the updates & interesting information on the US. > > > > The 'lack of transparency' I was referring to is about mass transit > > options. Transparency may be much greater in the US but even there, when > > policy-makers (or was it a referendum) approve spending $180 million per > > km on a metro rail system in Washington, are they really exploring all > > available options in a transparent manner? > > > > Lack of transparency often means a lack of information about how public > > money is being used. A good example is the comment below that > > 'government institutions are not really involved' in the Bangkok > > Skytrain. If only ... In fact, the government is paying for the > > infrastructure for Skytrain extensions; 2km to open next year and a > > further 17.2km approved. It's probably only through the ongoing intimate > > involvement of the government that the system is still operating, as it > > has never covered its operating expenses plus interest costs. > > > > Even if there were perfect transparency, however, it's true that the > > interests of powerful landowners - as described below - would probably > > keep something like value capture off the political agenda anyway, at > > least in Bangkok. > > > > Regards, Karl Fjellstrom > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org > > [mailto:owner-sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org] On Behalf Of Craig > > Townsend > > Sent: Sunday, 25 May 2003 4:23 AM > > To: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org > > Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: Land Value Taxation Event 23/04/03 > > > > > > Eric makes good points about the US. Similarly, in Canadian cities the > > level > > of transparency surrounding mass public transport projects (usually > > rail) is > > very high. Costs of public transport projects and operations are the > > subject > > of a high level of public scrutiny and debate. There is a big debate > > going on > > now in Vancouver about a proposed rail line, and due to extensive news > > coverage anyone who reads the newspaper has a good understanding of the > > costs > > involved and the various debates surrounding the project: e.g. see > > today's > > Vancouver Sun newspaper http://www.canada.com/vancouver/story.asp? > > id=30BD1DF4-E7CC-42BD-AA5C-D3D310ACF9E0). The level of transparency > > surrounding road projects is typically much lower. > > > > One point that I would like to make about value capture is that it is > > worth > > clarifying who is capturing value. A form of indirect value capture by > > government (and hence in theory all sectors of society) from transport > > infrastructure improvements does occur in Australia because the > > improvements > > raise the market value of adjacent lands. Those increases are reflected > > in the > > level of property assessment and will result in more tax revenue to the > > government. The situation is different in Bangkok where there are only > > small > > administrative charges on land owners, but no taxation based on assessed > > > > market value. The Bangkok Transit System is a privately owned and > > operated > > rail rapid transit system. The owners of the system make deals with > > other > > corporations, businesspeople, and landowners to mutually increase their > > revenue, but government institutions are not really involved. > > > > Craig Townsend > > > > Quoting Eric Bruun : > > > > > > > > I want to point out that in some places, public transport agencies are > > > specfically not allowed to use land value capture. It would take > > > changes in laws first. > > > > > > Secondly, the lack of transparency about costs for public transport > > > projects is certainly not true in the US. The Federal government > > > requires all kinds of documentation about local/state contributions > > > and about future operating cost supports for public transport projects > > > > > before it contributes. This is then used by the highway lobby to point > > > > > out how expensive public transport is. But the truth is that there is > > > no matching requirement for highway projects, especially not about the > > > > > operating and maintenance costs. This is good for the highway lobby, > > > because much of the operating support comes from property taxes and > > > general taxation, not from user taxes. > > > > > > Eric Bruun > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Karl Fjellstrom" > > > To: > > > Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 5:05 AM > > > Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: Land Value Taxation Event 23/04/03 > > > > > > > > > > Dear Paul & Craig, sorry for the delayed response. > > > > > > > > Bogota implemented a value capture scheme along the TransMilenio > > > > (www.transmilenio.gov.co) lines which was apparently (according to > > > > the Mayor of the time) successful in recouping some of the windfall > > > > gains which accrued to land ownwers along the TransMilenio route. > > > > This value capture is an important part of the funding arrangement > > > > for the ongoing expansion of the system. > > > > > > > > The COO of Bangkok's Skytrain system in March gave a presentation to > > > > the Thai-German Chamber of Commerce where he outlined major > > > > increases in property values in proximity to the Skytrain stations; > > > > especially for commercial premises like shopping malls. Responding > > > > to a question, he said however that there was no plan for any kind > > > > of tax/charge to capture the windfall gains to the owners of these > > > > premises, but that they to some extent capture these gains by > > > > imposing charges for the commercial premises to establish walkway > > > > connections to the Skytrain stations. > > > > > > > > Similarly in Brisbane, when it is proposed to the transit officials > > > > express strong interest in some form of value capture to fund system > > > > > > expansion, though nothing like that has been implemented there. > > > > What's the catch? Here's my conspiracy theory: there is often an > > > > incredible dearth of transparency and open debate surrounding all > > > > issues of mass transit system cost, especially when it comes to rail > > > > > > metros. It's only when there is no financial black hole to hide, > > > > such as in Bogota's bus rapid transit system, that you might see > > > > these options openly canvassed. (Political commitment helps too, of > > > > course...) > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > Karl Fjellstrom > > > > > > > > From karl at dnet.net.id Thu May 29 13:28:51 2003 From: karl at dnet.net.id (Karl Fjellstrom) Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 11:28:51 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: Skytrain In-Reply-To: <003d01c323ab$d0e5b280$8f5f79a5@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <000001c3259a$d0aee520$240310ac@KFOffice> Eric, Thanks for your v interesting info on the US metro lines and I'm happy to provide a few more details on Bangkok. I'd welcome any corrections or additional info. The city & national government together have spent around US$145 million per km on a 20km, 19-station "Blue Line" subway which will open in Bangkok in April 2004. It will intersect with the 23km Skytrain network at 3 places but will not be fare integrated. The Blue Line is one of the ways the government is supporting the Skytrain, as clearly it will significantly enlarge the Skytrain's catchment. Even the Skytrain, which goes through prime areas of Bangkok, has difficulty getting ridership to cover operating costs and it's still operating at around 40% of the projected ridership for 1999. So it's difficult to see how the Blue Line, which has a much less juicy catchment, will cover costs. The government btw has paid the $2.7 billion infrastructure price tag for the Blue Line. The concessionaire is expected to pay for the system operation & rolling stock. [To put it in perspective, TransMilenio BRT in Bogota cost the govt around $5 mill per km (with no operational subsidy) and carries nearly double (currently at 770,000 passengers per day and rising) the number of passengers per day that the Skytrain and Blue Line together will carry in 2004. TransMilenio is the same length as the two Bangkok rail systems combined.] Another, more direct way the government is supporting the Skytrain is by paying for infrastructure extensions to the Skytrain network; 2km to open next year and a further 17.2km approved. The program of rail metro expansion in Bangkok has received a big boost in May 2003 with a new Master Plan calling for a 100km network by 2010. Other options such as Bus Rapid Transit were not seriously considered. The original owner of the Skytrain, Tanayong, is otherwise occupied (in Bankruptcy Court proceedings), and meanwhile one of the Skytrain operating company's major objectives appears to be to try to get the government to pay for more infrastructure extensions to its network. One way this is done is by exaggerating the benefits of the Skytrain. I'm sure there are others ... Regards, Karl -----Original Message----- From: owner-sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org [mailto:owner-sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org] On Behalf Of Eric Bruun Sent: Tuesday, 27 May 2003 12:25 AM To: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org Cc: del Mistro Subject: [sustran] Re: Skytrain Karl 1) Actually, many of us are vitally interested in how the finances of the SkyTrain are doing. It is an extremely important issue, since privately financed proposals are being presented around the world. I too would appreciate some information. 2) You are right about the lack of transparency in decision making in the US (and Canada). There are some decisions begin made which are clearly to the benefit of special interests and disregard more urgent investments with better return-on-investment to the public at large. For example, the Blue Line extention of the Washington, DC Metro cost $400 Million for only a couple of miles and seems to be largely for the benefit of the professional sports stadium owners. Meanwhile, a short light-rail line for the same cost would close the U of the Red Line and address far more significant needs. Same in Pittsburgh. There is a $300 Million tunnel under a river which goes to the pro sports stadiums and then stops. If one is going to spend the money on a tunnel, then the incremental benefit to cost ratio is very high to extend it further into other communities. Eric Bruun ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Townsend" To: Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 3:56 AM Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: Land Value Taxation Event 23/04/03 > Karl, > > I haven't kept up with the recent details concerning the extensions to > the BTS > and other issues regarding government support to Bangkok's rail > systems under > construction. From your comments, it sounds like the Government of Thailand is > now providing financial support to the BTSC: an operating subsidy or > help with > debt servicing?. Could you or anyone else provide me with some details (e.g. > cost, financing, government agencies involved)? It would probably be > best if > you reply to me personally (townsend@central.murdoch.edu.au), rather > than through Sustran, and would be much appreciated. Thanks. > > Craig > > Quoting Karl Fjellstrom : > > > Thanks for the updates & interesting information on the US. > > > > The 'lack of transparency' I was referring to is about mass transit > > options. Transparency may be much greater in the US but even there, > > when policy-makers (or was it a referendum) approve spending $180 > > million per km on a metro rail system in Washington, are they really > > exploring all available options in a transparent manner? > > > > Lack of transparency often means a lack of information about how > > public money is being used. A good example is the comment below that > > 'government institutions are not really involved' in the Bangkok > > Skytrain. If only ... In fact, the government is paying for the > > infrastructure for Skytrain extensions; 2km to open next year and a > > further 17.2km approved. It's probably only through the ongoing > > intimate involvement of the government that the system is still > > operating, as it has never covered its operating expenses plus > > interest costs. > > > > Even if there were perfect transparency, however, it's true that the > > interests of powerful landowners - as described below - would > > probably keep something like value capture off the political agenda > > anyway, at least in Bangkok. > > > > Regards, Karl Fjellstrom > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org > > [mailto:owner-sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org] On Behalf Of Craig > > Townsend > > Sent: Sunday, 25 May 2003 4:23 AM > > To: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org > > Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: Land Value Taxation Event 23/04/03 > > > > > > Eric makes good points about the US. Similarly, in Canadian cities > > the level of transparency surrounding mass public transport projects > > (usually > > rail) is > > very high. Costs of public transport projects and operations are the > > subject of a high level of public scrutiny and debate. There is a > > big debate going on > > now in Vancouver about a proposed rail line, and due to extensive news > > coverage anyone who reads the newspaper has a good understanding of the > > costs > > involved and the various debates surrounding the project: e.g. see > > today's > > Vancouver Sun newspaper http://www.canada.com/vancouver/story.asp? > > id=30BD1DF4-E7CC-42BD-AA5C-D3D310ACF9E0). The level of transparency > > surrounding road projects is typically much lower. > > > > One point that I would like to make about value capture is that it > > is worth clarifying who is capturing value. A form of indirect value > > capture by government (and hence in theory all sectors of society) > > from transport infrastructure improvements does occur in Australia > > because the improvements > > raise the market value of adjacent lands. Those increases are reflected > > in the > > level of property assessment and will result in more tax revenue to the > > government. The situation is different in Bangkok where there are only > > small > > administrative charges on land owners, but no taxation based on assessed > > > > market value. The Bangkok Transit System is a privately owned and > > operated rail rapid transit system. The owners of the system make > > deals with other > > corporations, businesspeople, and landowners to mutually increase their > > revenue, but government institutions are not really involved. > > > > Craig Townsend > > > > Quoting Eric Bruun : > > > > > > > > I want to point out that in some places, public transport agencies > > > are specfically not allowed to use land value capture. It would > > > take changes in laws first. > > > > > > Secondly, the lack of transparency about costs for public > > > transport projects is certainly not true in the US. The Federal > > > government requires all kinds of documentation about local/state > > > contributions and about future operating cost supports for public > > > transport projects > > > > > before it contributes. This is then used by the highway lobby to > > > point > > > > > out how expensive public transport is. But the truth is that there > > > is no matching requirement for highway projects, especially not > > > about the > > > > > operating and maintenance costs. This is good for the highway > > > lobby, because much of the operating support comes from property > > > taxes and general taxation, not from user taxes. > > > > > > Eric Bruun > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Karl Fjellstrom" > > > To: > > > Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 5:05 AM > > > Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: Land Value Taxation Event 23/04/03 > > > > > > > > > > Dear Paul & Craig, sorry for the delayed response. > > > > > > > > Bogota implemented a value capture scheme along the TransMilenio > > > > (www.transmilenio.gov.co) lines which was apparently (according > > > > to the Mayor of the time) successful in recouping some of the > > > > windfall gains which accrued to land ownwers along the > > > > TransMilenio route. This value capture is an important part of > > > > the funding arrangement for the ongoing expansion of the system. > > > > > > > > The COO of Bangkok's Skytrain system in March gave a > > > > presentation to the Thai-German Chamber of Commerce where he > > > > outlined major increases in property values in proximity to the > > > > Skytrain stations; especially for commercial premises like > > > > shopping malls. Responding to a question, he said however that > > > > there was no plan for any kind of tax/charge to capture the > > > > windfall gains to the owners of these premises, but that they to > > > > some extent capture these gains by imposing charges for the > > > > commercial premises to establish walkway connections to the > > > > Skytrain stations. > > > > > > > > Similarly in Brisbane, when it is proposed to the transit > > > > officials express strong interest in some form of value capture > > > > to fund system > > > > > > expansion, though nothing like that has been implemented there. > > > > What's the catch? Here's my conspiracy theory: there is often an > > > > incredible dearth of transparency and open debate surrounding > > > > all issues of mass transit system cost, especially when it comes > > > > to rail > > > > > > metros. It's only when there is no financial black hole to hide, > > > > such as in Bogota's bus rapid transit system, that you might see > > > > these options openly canvassed. (Political commitment helps too, > > > > of > > > > course...) > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > Karl Fjellstrom > > > > > > > > From ericbruun at earthlink.net Fri May 30 01:38:53 2003 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 12:38:53 -0400 Subject: [sustran] [sustran] more on Skytrain References: <000001c3259a$d0aee520$240310ac@KFOffice> Message-ID: <003101c32600$ce38f2c0$045179a5@earthlink.net> Karl Thanks for the update about the finances of SkyTrain. I think that there are two issues here which should be separated. One issue is the modal choice.I don't know Bangkok, but I imagine there would have to be massive dislocation to build something like TransMillennio if the right-of-way is not already available. It requires four lanes plus stations in the middle and long overpasses to access stations. While I support as many TransMillenio systems as can possibly be built, they can not be built everywhere. When rail systems are built, they will be there a long time, so from a sustainable development standpoint even the high capital cost might be justified. The second issue is the fare level. I think it is obscene for a city as congested and polluted as Bangkok to have a rapid transit line cross it which uses only a fraction of its capacity. Surely the demand is out there, since most other large, congested cities have overloaded rapid transit systems. If I understand it correctly the fares were set too high for the majority of residents to afford. It seems you have to be rich enough to own a car to be able to afford SkyTrain. I think the whole privately financed idea was just right-wing ideology coming from the World Bank. If the rich countries don't expect fares to recover capital investment where the residents have a much higher ability to pay, why should this work in lower income countries? Eric Bruun ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karl Fjellstrom" To: Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 12:28 AM Subject: [sustran] Re: Skytrain > Eric, > > Thanks for your v interesting info on the US metro lines and I'm happy > to provide a few more details on Bangkok. I'd welcome any corrections or > additional info. > > The city & national government together have spent around US$145 million > per km on a 20km, 19-station "Blue Line" subway which will open in > Bangkok in April 2004. It will intersect with the 23km Skytrain network > at 3 places but will not be fare integrated. The Blue Line is one of the > ways the government is supporting the Skytrain, as clearly it will > significantly enlarge the Skytrain's catchment. Even the Skytrain, which > goes through prime areas of Bangkok, has difficulty getting ridership to > cover operating costs and it's still operating at around 40% of the > projected ridership for 1999. So it's difficult to see how the Blue > Line, which has a much less juicy catchment, will cover costs. The > government btw has paid the $2.7 billion infrastructure price tag for > the Blue Line. The concessionaire is expected to pay for the system > operation & rolling stock. > > [To put it in perspective, TransMilenio BRT in Bogota cost the govt > around $5 mill per km (with no operational subsidy) and carries nearly > double (currently at 770,000 passengers per day and rising) the number > of passengers per day that the Skytrain and Blue Line together will > carry in 2004. TransMilenio is the same length as the two Bangkok rail > systems combined.] > > Another, more direct way the government is supporting the Skytrain is by > paying for infrastructure extensions to the Skytrain network; 2km to > open next year and a further 17.2km approved. The program of rail metro > expansion in Bangkok has received a big boost in May 2003 with a new > Master Plan calling for a 100km network by 2010. Other options such as > Bus Rapid Transit were not seriously considered. > > The original owner of the Skytrain, Tanayong, is otherwise occupied (in > Bankruptcy Court proceedings), and meanwhile one of the Skytrain > operating company's major objectives appears to be to try to get the > government to pay for more infrastructure extensions to its network. One > way this is done is by exaggerating the benefits of the Skytrain. I'm > sure there are others ... > > Regards, Karl > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org > [mailto:owner-sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org] On Behalf Of Eric Bruun > Sent: Tuesday, 27 May 2003 12:25 AM > To: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org > Cc: del Mistro > Subject: [sustran] Re: Skytrain > > > > Karl > > 1) Actually, many of us are vitally interested in how the finances of > the SkyTrain are doing. It is an extremely important issue, since > privately financed proposals are being presented around the world. I too > would appreciate some information. > > 2) You are right about the lack of transparency in decision making in > the US (and Canada). There are some decisions begin made which are > clearly to the benefit of special interests and disregard more urgent > investments with better return-on-investment to the public at large. For > example, the Blue Line extention of the Washington, DC Metro cost $400 > Million for only a couple of miles and seems to be largely for the > benefit of the professional sports stadium owners. Meanwhile, a short > light-rail line for the same cost would close the U of the Red Line and > address far more significant needs. Same in Pittsburgh. There is a $300 > Million tunnel under a river which goes to the pro sports stadiums and > then stops. If one is going to spend the money on a tunnel, then the > incremental benefit to cost ratio is very high to extend it further into > other communities. > > Eric Bruun > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Craig Townsend" > To: > Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 3:56 AM > Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: Land Value Taxation Event 23/04/03 > > > > Karl, > > > > I haven't kept up with the recent details concerning the extensions to > > > the > BTS > > and other issues regarding government support to Bangkok's rail > > systems > under > > construction. From your comments, it sounds like the Government of > Thailand is > > now providing financial support to the BTSC: an operating subsidy or > > help > with > > debt servicing?. Could you or anyone else provide me with some details > (e.g. > > cost, financing, government agencies involved)? It would probably be > > best > if > > you reply to me personally (townsend@central.murdoch.edu.au), rather > > than through Sustran, and would be much appreciated. Thanks. > > > > Craig > > > > Quoting Karl Fjellstrom : > > > > > Thanks for the updates & interesting information on the US. > > > > > > The 'lack of transparency' I was referring to is about mass transit > > > options. Transparency may be much greater in the US but even there, > > > when policy-makers (or was it a referendum) approve spending $180 > > > million per km on a metro rail system in Washington, are they really > > > > exploring all available options in a transparent manner? > > > > > > Lack of transparency often means a lack of information about how > > > public money is being used. A good example is the comment below that > > > > 'government institutions are not really involved' in the Bangkok > > > Skytrain. If only ... In fact, the government is paying for the > > > infrastructure for Skytrain extensions; 2km to open next year and a > > > further 17.2km approved. It's probably only through the ongoing > > > intimate involvement of the government that the system is still > > > operating, as it has never covered its operating expenses plus > > > interest costs. > > > > > > Even if there were perfect transparency, however, it's true that the > > > > interests of powerful landowners - as described below - would > > > probably keep something like value capture off the political agenda > > > anyway, at least in Bangkok. > > > > > > Regards, Karl Fjellstrom > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org > > > [mailto:owner-sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org] On Behalf Of Craig > > > Townsend > > > Sent: Sunday, 25 May 2003 4:23 AM > > > To: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org > > > Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: Land Value Taxation Event 23/04/03 > > > > > > > > > Eric makes good points about the US. Similarly, in Canadian cities > > > the level of transparency surrounding mass public transport projects > > > > (usually > > > rail) is > > > very high. Costs of public transport projects and operations are the > > > > subject of a high level of public scrutiny and debate. There is a > > > big debate going on > > > now in Vancouver about a proposed rail line, and due to extensive > news > > > coverage anyone who reads the newspaper has a good understanding of > the > > > costs > > > involved and the various debates surrounding the project: e.g. see > > > today's > > > Vancouver Sun newspaper http://www.canada.com/vancouver/story.asp? > > > id=30BD1DF4-E7CC-42BD-AA5C-D3D310ACF9E0). The level of transparency > > > surrounding road projects is typically much lower. > > > > > > One point that I would like to make about value capture is that it > > > is worth clarifying who is capturing value. A form of indirect value > > > > capture by government (and hence in theory all sectors of society) > > > from transport infrastructure improvements does occur in Australia > > > because the improvements > > > raise the market value of adjacent lands. Those increases are > reflected > > > in the > > > level of property assessment and will result in more tax revenue to > the > > > government. The situation is different in Bangkok where there are > only > > > small > > > administrative charges on land owners, but no taxation based on > assessed > > > > > > market value. The Bangkok Transit System is a privately owned and > > > operated rail rapid transit system. The owners of the system make > > > deals with other > > > corporations, businesspeople, and landowners to mutually increase > their > > > revenue, but government institutions are not really involved. > > > > > > Craig Townsend > > > > > > Quoting Eric Bruun : > > > > > > > > > > > I want to point out that in some places, public transport agencies > > > > > are specfically not allowed to use land value capture. It would > > > > take changes in laws first. > > > > > > > > Secondly, the lack of transparency about costs for public > > > > transport projects is certainly not true in the US. The Federal > > > > government requires all kinds of documentation about local/state > > > > contributions and about future operating cost supports for public > > > > transport projects > > > > > > > before it contributes. This is then used by the highway lobby to > > > > point > > > > > > > out how expensive public transport is. But the truth is that there > > > > > is no matching requirement for highway projects, especially not > > > > about the > > > > > > > operating and maintenance costs. This is good for the highway > > > > lobby, because much of the operating support comes from property > > > > taxes and general taxation, not from user taxes. > > > > > > > > Eric Bruun > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Karl Fjellstrom" > > > > To: > > > > Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 5:05 AM > > > > Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: Land Value Taxation Event 23/04/03 > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Paul & Craig, sorry for the delayed response. > > > > > > > > > > Bogota implemented a value capture scheme along the TransMilenio > > > > > (www.transmilenio.gov.co) lines which was apparently (according > > > > > to the Mayor of the time) successful in recouping some of the > > > > > windfall gains which accrued to land ownwers along the > > > > > TransMilenio route. This value capture is an important part of > > > > > the funding arrangement for the ongoing expansion of the system. > > > > > > > > > > The COO of Bangkok's Skytrain system in March gave a > > > > > presentation to the Thai-German Chamber of Commerce where he > > > > > outlined major increases in property values in proximity to the > > > > > Skytrain stations; especially for commercial premises like > > > > > shopping malls. Responding to a question, he said however that > > > > > there was no plan for any kind of tax/charge to capture the > > > > > windfall gains to the owners of these premises, but that they to > > > > > > some extent capture these gains by imposing charges for the > > > > > commercial premises to establish walkway connections to the > > > > > Skytrain stations. > > > > > > > > > > Similarly in Brisbane, when it is proposed to the transit > > > > > officials express strong interest in some form of value capture > > > > > to fund system > > > > > > > > expansion, though nothing like that has been implemented there. > > > > > What's the catch? Here's my conspiracy theory: there is often an > > > > > > incredible dearth of transparency and open debate surrounding > > > > > all issues of mass transit system cost, especially when it comes > > > > > > to rail > > > > > > > > metros. It's only when there is no financial black hole to hide, > > > > > > such as in Bogota's bus rapid transit system, that you might see > > > > > > these options openly canvassed. (Political commitment helps too, > > > > > > of > > > > > course...) > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > Karl Fjellstrom > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >