<html> <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)"> <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> Thanks so much Simon for that fine synopsis. A quick word about your good third point in which you mention Land (Value) Taxes as an important tool of public policy. And what is so interesting about our exchanges here over the last week or so is the extent to which all of the commentators have jumped right on the land/transport interface.   There is absolutely no doubt about this, and given its importance and potential reach it is quite surprising that it gets so little attention. (Maybe because it's just too hard, and because it brings in areas of life and expertise which the folks who make the transportation decisions are simply not trained to.)   We here at the New Mobility Agenda, just to make sure that this important topic does not get lost in the wash, got together with some colleagues and set up the Land Café which you can visit at www.landcafe.org – and where the discussions run at a very high level indeed (as they do here in our are of concern, I should add).   Eric Britton   PS. And for those of you who might like to get a feel for how long these ideas have been around, if you click to the Land Café’s Thinkpad (see top menu at <a href="http://www.landcafe.org/">www.landcafe.org</a>) you will see a splendid exchange between two people with quite contrary ideas on the subject. It is also a wonderful example of American English (yes!) at its most full throated.)   <div style='border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm'>   </div>     On Behalf Of Simon Norton Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 4:12 PM Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] housing costs   Yes, I always think that the higher cost of in town housing is largely a function of its scarcity. In the UK one's impression is that commercial developers have lost the knowledge of how to build anything but suburban style housing. As a result those who resent the ever increasing loss of open countryside (a very important issue in the UK) almost always lose out when the planners make their decisions. Planners distinguish between "Greenfield" and "brownfield" land, the latter signifying land that has previously been developed. Unfortunately it includes things like disused quarries and military airfields which are not in locations where they can be grafted on to an urban area. One of the reasons why people move out of the cities, I'm sure, is because they are fed up with traffic noise. So there's the usual problem that those who try to escape the problem are in fact exacerbating it by moving to locations where they have a greater need for cars. Much of the extra space available to householders in suburban areas is used to accommodate cars and as such does not contribute to people's quality of life. How about this for a solution ? 1. Go in for car-free housing in a big way. In other words move it out of the niche market it currently occupies and make it a significant proportion of new housing (say 30%, more for affordable housing). I believe that people will accept it if (a) Public transport is adequate for all their day to day needs that are beyond walking/cycling distance (b) Car club (community car hire) facilities are available (c) It provides a means to enable them to solve their personal housing problem. If necessary there should be a tax incentive within the housing market to encourage people to choose car-free housing. 2. Build new metropolitan centres or convert existing smaller towns and cities to metropolises. In the UK all our new towns have tended to be on the suburban model, no doubt as a result of Ebenezer Howard et al who developed his ideas at a time when cities were physically dirty. The only new town that is on the way to metropolitan size, Milton Keynes, was planned at a time when accommodating universal car use was seen as a virtue. My own home city, Cambridge, is becoming a key regional centre, but its population growth is almost all in suburban developments outside the traditional urban envelope.   Both the road and public transport networks ensure that the traditional city (though not so much the historic centre) is the focus for activity, which makes our transport problems almost insoluble in terms of the car orientation of most of the people in the new suburbs. The local authority while restricting cars in the historic centre is doing very little to restrain traffic growth elsewhere. 3. And there's our old friends land tax, which could finance the public transport networks necessary to service the car-free developments of 1 and the new metropolises of 2 (including inter-urban links between them and other towns and cities). It should have little direct effect on affordability, because the initial cost of housing would fall in such a way as to offset the land tax that people who lived in it would have to pay. Simon Norton   </div> </body> </html>