[sustran] RE: Re: successes and failures of privatization of city transport

[Daryl]

-----Original Message From: Eric Britton
[mailto:ecoplan.adsl at wanadoo.fr] 
Subject: RE: Re: successes and failures of privatization of city
transport

>Dear Mr. Oster,
>Sorry that you were the victim of our new anti-spam system.  For the
most part it -- >ChoiceMail -- is working very well and in fact we
recommend it to those who are >being overloade3d these days.  We
recommend it.
>As to your recent mails to the group, our focus is quite on policy and
not technology, >so we do systematically do not include contributions
from suppliers or proponents of >technology based systems.  For
technology projects, we recommend the excellent >site of our colleagues
at Innovative Transportation Technologies which you will find >at
http://faculty.washington.edu/~jbs/itrans   For our part we have to be
very careful >to retain focus in order to hold this group together and
thank you for your >understanding.
>Sincerely,
>Eric Britton 


Eric,

I am quite interested in the innovative spam filter and I do intend on
looking into using it.  Thank you for recommending it.  Additionally, I
am an active member of the transit-alternatives list.

Thank you for your reply and explanation of your WorldTransport-Focus
group's policy.  Is everyone in the group aware of this policy? I did
not see it stated on the home page of the group.

My post (included below this message) to the WorldTransport-Focus group
was strictly about world transport planning issues; I am surprised you
rejected it.  My post apparently is not in agreement with your personal
ideology; but I hope for the sake of the environment and world
inhabitants that you re-examine your arbitrary policy.

I think that we do agree that energy and environmental sustainability is
paramount.  The global sustainability issues were agreed upon during the
world sustainability summit in Rio.  The UN agenda21 was drafted and
adopted by most of the UN nations a dozen years ago.  Agenda21 has been
universal accepted, and massive sustainability legislation has resulted
from it.   The efforts precipitated by UN Agenda21 have been noticed
about as much as a fart during a hurricane. Subsequent sustainability
conferences have noted that the world is less sustainable now than it
was a dozen years ago. 

Most policy makers and transportation planners do not live sustainable
lives; how can they expect "everyone else" to do so?  Planners and
policy makers must ask ourselves: "If everyone else in the world lived
exactly like I do, would it be sustainable?"   Eric, how many miles have
you traveled in the last year? What was the percentage by train,
airplane, car, buss, bicycle, etc.  The problem is that most people
think: "That policy or transit system is great for everyone else; but it
does not apply to me."  This is the crux of the issue; the policies
being adopted makes us feel good, but ARE NOT WORKING. If we keep doing
what we are doing, we will keep getting what we are getting.  

The current trends in policy making may be environmentally and energy
sustainable, but ARE NOT SOCIALLY SUSTAINABLE.   Ignoring basic human
nature, with regard to policy making will fail.  Planning and
implementing high benefit to cost transportation technologies is the
only way to achieve sustainability of ecology, energy, and social
issues.

I am sending this to the sustran list as well, perhaps some of the
worldtransport-focus members will see it, and understand that the
worldtransport-focus group is apparently fitted with blinders.

There is much we agree on, I hope you do not continue to exclude posts
from those who suggest that there are technologies that should be
considered when planning global transportation policy.  If you have any
reasons to suggest that my global transportation planning thesis is
unsound; isn't open debate more effective than censorship?   I would
think that is the purpose of group discussion.  On the other hand, if
you have no credible arguments to counter my thesis, then your strategy
of rejecting my post is your only option; and I can respect your
decision to do it.  

I suspect though that you just haven't taken the time to examine the
perspective I bring to the table.  I hope you do take the time, as the
planning strategy I suggest has the potential to accomplish over 80% of
UN Agenda21 goals within our lifetime.


Best Regards,


Daryl Oster
*************************************************
CEO, et3.com Inc.                           http://www.et3.com
et3 at et3.com      POB 1423 Crystal River FL 34423-1423
(352) 795-5415                          (mobile (352)257-8337)
Our ETT patent offers 300mph transit via human power, 
4000mph with MagLev.  Your help is vital.
*************************************************


--- In WorldTransport-Focus at y..., "p.withrington" <p.withrington at n...>
wrote:
> In 1966/7 I had the misfortune to share an office with two members of 
> the Railway Conversion League .  They believed that the railway lines 
> should be removed in favour of a road surface (managed to avoid 
> congestion).
> 
> I thought they were lunatics but, much to my regret, they destroyed 
> all my arguments over a few weeks and I had to join them.  Now, I can
scarcely mention rail in polite company for fear of attracting truly
vitriolic criticism for railways appear to occupy a territory close to
heaven in most people's minds.
> 
> However, I risk putting the case before this forum via a series of 
> messages of which this is the first.  The data relates almost entirely

> to the UK national rail network.
> 
> I shall show that, contrary to popular belief, motor roads managed to 
> avoid congestion have 3 to 4 times the capacity of equivalent rail 
> space at one quarter the cost while using less fuel and while 
> subjecting passengers to casualty costs 3 times lower than suffered by

> rail passengers.

[CLIP]
>Paul F Withrington

Daryl Oster's reply:
I agree that rail has been proven to be less effective than roads.   In
most markets where earning power is improving, trains continue to loose
market share, in spite of subsidies. 

While it can be shown that a fully loaded train is more energy efficient
and labor efficient than trucks or cars, they have none the less proven
themselves to be unsustainable due to social reasons.  Attempting to
force social changes contrary to basic human nature is proven to fail
over and over.

Planning Safe, Sustainable, High Benefit to Cost Transportation.

C 2002, Daryl Oster, Crystal River FL

ABSTRACT

Safety of transit is dependant on the degree of isolation of the path of
travel, and the kinetic and exothermic energy of the vehicle. Public
safety is easily compromised when massive vehicles are hijacked.  Jet
aircraft represent great threat due to rapid unconstrained operation and
mass of fuel.  

The sustainability movement is based on observations that traditional
transit planning yields: global warming, acid storm runoff, wildlife
harm, bad air, noise, accidents, crumbling infrastructure, and
congestion. Experts see oil production peaking around 2010
(http://www.hubbertpeak.com).  The prosperity from the automobile and
airplane are not sustainable. A new quantum leap is needed.

The "new hydrogen economy" is not sustainable, it will likely increase
total energy use. Fuel cells are dirty to produce. Most Hydrogen is
produced from methane; wasting a third of the energy, and releasing
greenhouse gas. Producing H2 from electrolysis of water wastes 30% of
the electrical energy.

The "new urbanism" and "smart growth" initiatives are bids to return to
old ways; they oppose social expectations of expanding affluence, this
limits their success. Bicycles are sustainable, but weather exposure,
meager speed, and pathetic capacity limit use; so the car gains ground.
Rail systems are being proposed as sustainable transportation. Trains
are appropriate vehicles to move elephant sized cargo, not humans;
http://www.publicpurpose.com displays the failure of rail. Terrorists
can easily derail trains.
 
Evacuated Tube Transport (ETT), Ultra Low Power Vehicles (ULPV), and
Personal Rapid Transport (PRT) are safe, sustainable transportation
technologies that do not challenge social momentum.  
ETT is:
* FAST - to 500 kph for regional use, (6000 kph international).
* CONVENIENT- continuous, automated operation without delays.
* EFFICIENT- a human powered ETT can achieve 500kph.
* CLEAN- environmentally benign using renewable energy.
* SAFE- isolated guideway eliminates collisions in any weather.
* ACHIEVABLE- equipment exists to build ETT with affordable components. 
* SCALEABLE - capacity can be inexpensively added as demand grows. The
automated, silent ETT works by removing resistance. Ultra lightweight,
pressurized cabins travel in tubes on thin steel wheels, or P-MagLev.
No air is in the tube to cause resistance.  Energy is recovered when
slowing. Propulsion fuel is not carried onboard. (See
http://www.et3.com/intro.htm )
 
ULPVs are:
* Under 5kw to minimize energy use and emissions. 
* Under 100kg to maximize acceleration, and minimize material use. 
* Enclosed for usability in varying conditions.
* Streamlined to reach highway speeds.
* Narrow - can double lane capacity by adding a stripe.
* Low cost without subsidies.
* fit in ETT capsules for fast, distant travel with personal transport
convenience.
 
Automated PRT costs 10% to build and operate verses light rail, and is
twice as fast. See http://www.artwerkz.com/h/ (links to other PRT here
as well).
 
Government and industry must achieve public purpose at minimum cost.
Innovative transit proposals must be compared on a benefit to cost basis
with existing technology; and show capital and energy costs for low,
medium, and high use factors.  This will show relative risks if use
fails expectations.  
 
Failure to implement safe, sustainable, high benefit to cost
technologies will result in moribund economies, degrading environment,
starvation, and war, as people struggle to survive without cheap energy.

 
For a sustainable transportation plan to succeed short term it must
offer; improved convenience, capacity, and speed at lower cost with
greater safety.  For long term, it must specify systems that offer a
tenfold improvement in energy efficiency, and improve environmental
conditions with tenfold reduction in emissions. 
 
Planning and funding a sustainable transit initiative using the
appropriate application of high cost to benefit technologies like ETT,
ULPV, and PRT will yield safe, sustainable results unobtainable any
other way. 


Best Regards,


Daryl Oster
*************************************************
CEO, et3.com Inc.                           http://www.et3.com
et3 at et3.com      POB 1423 Crystal River FL 34423-1423
(352) 795-5415                          (mobile (352)257-8337)
Our ETT patent offers 300mph transit via human power, 
4000mph with MagLev.  Your help is vital.
*************************************************