[sustran] Re: Draft proposal to Principal Voices - Comparing Costs of
Modes
Daryl Oster
et3 at et3.com
Fri Dec 31 13:15:03 JST 2004
Todd,
If you follow your logic far enough you end up at the point proving that
cars are subsidizing trains through the cost of parking. Most parking is
"free" that is it is provided by the business owner to attract business to
their store. The cost of the parking lot is part of the business cost, and
added to the product or services provided - so the one who parks at the
store pays for their parking when they buy the products at the store. There
are many other transportation costs embodied in the cost of products in
addition to the cost of parking. Much of the freight in the US is moved by
ship and rail, and the cost of that shipping is added to the product cost,
and paid by those who park in the parking lots (cars). Therefore cars are
subsidizing rail infrastructure.
IMO, the market is mostly fair and impartial, and in the US market trains
were compared with cars long ago; guess what -- the trains lost. You are
correct - the contest was NOT fair - it was biased in favor of trains. The
railroads had much more clout than automotive innovators at the start of the
contest -- railroads had market share AND tremendous political power (they
still do), yet cars won the comparison - and they are winning all over the
world. The situation today is vary similar with innovative transportation
modes - still in experiment and development. It is now the car market that
is peaking, instead of the train and bike market that peaked in the early
1900s.
I understand why you so vehemently defend your untenable position. You have
selected a good market niche to work - the railroads still have plenty of
money to use to hang on to their still sizable global market! Your efforts
are a stop-gap tool for the railroaders. Lovins has chosen his niche to
work in promoting his hypercar, his work being supported by automobile
interests and government. This is a more defendable position than the one
you are in; as the battle between car and train is essentially over in the
US- the new battle is be between aircraft and car, and new technology like
aPRT and ETT. A better position yet would be with the best innovators.
In China, cars have not yet won against trains, and it is likely both cars
and trains in China will be beat at the same time there by new tech. The top
transportation engineering university in China was focused on rail tech.
During the last 3 years they have shifted there focus on new transportation
technology as part of the 10th national 5 year plan of China. The central
government of China has mandated that all new investments in the key
national labs must be high-tech, leading edge technology -- not following
technology like steel rail - or cars. China is now leap-frogging into the
lead with fifth generation transport technology development programs at
their top rated transportation university and key national lab.
The ETT program at SWJTU is being led by Dr. Zhang Yaoping, the first et3
licensee in China (there are now 9 et3 licenses in China). The Chinese
fully understands the benefits and costs of ETT, as by their invitation we
spent 5 months out of the last two years in China. We were invited to
presented ETT at the highest levels of the scientific and engineering
community of China, and there is wide agreement to the likely benefits and
costs.
I am glad to learn you are ready and willing to get on with objective
analysis of ETT. I will be at the ATRA annual meeting in DC on the 9th of
January, the first day of TRB. Perhaps we can meet, and I can provide you
with up to date information that is not available on the et3 website. For
information on joining ARTA see the website http://www.advancedtransit.org .
Daryl Oster
(c) 2004 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth"
e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks
of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: et3 at et3.com ,
www.et3.com POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Todd Alexander Litman [mailto:litman at vtpi.org]
> Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 9:41 AM
> To: et3 at et3.com
> Subject: RE: Draft proposal to Principal Voices - Comparing Costs of Modes
>
>
> As I pointed out, and as elaborated in my paper, it is unfair to compare
>
> overall average roadway costs with rail transit costs, since automobile
>
> transportation also requires parking facilities, and because rail transit
>
> is provided only in urban areas where automobile costs are far higher than
>
> average. When compared fairly, based on the total public subsidy required
>
> to provide transportation in a particular situation, public transit is
>
> often cheaper than accommodating additional automobile travel, including
>
> land opportunity costs, roadway costs and parking costs.
>
>
> I suggest that you focus on emphasizing the positive features of your
>
> preferred mode. It is unnecessary to criticize other modes to justify
>
> innovation. The way you criticized rail and people who it is both
>
> inaccurate and misguided (See my paper, "Evaluating Criticism of Rail
>
> Transit". Also note that the "Road Gang", which lobbies for highway
>
> construction has far more resources than rail transit lobbyists.). If
>
> evacuated tube transport is really superior we will be able to demonstrate
>
> that with objective economic analysis rather than insults slung through
>
> cyberspace.
>
>
>
> Best holiday wishes,
>
> -Todd Litman
>
>
>
> At 11:46 PM 12/23/2004 -0500, Daryl Oster wrote:
>
>
> >Todd,
>
> >
>
> >The 50 factor is on a passenger mile basis - the only reasonable way to
>
> >measure the value of the subsidy.
>
> >
>
> >Using your fed expenditure numbers:
>
> >
>
> >One third of $104B = $35B; roads account for about 80% of passenger
>
> >transportation.
>
> >Rail = $16.7B + $1.2B = $17.9B; rail accounts for 1% of passenger
>
> >transportation.
>
> >SO
>
> >(80%/1%) X (17.9B/35B)= 41
>
> >
>
> >Not quite the 50 factor claimed by Cox; but he makes his case quite clear
>
> >without any need for me to elaborate further.
>
> >
>
> >Daryl Oster
>
> >(c) 2004 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth"
>
> >e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service
> marks
>
> >of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: et3 at et3.com ,
>
> >www.et3.com POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
>
> > > From: Todd Alexander Litman [mailto:litman at vtpi.org]
>
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 4:39 PM
>
> > > To: policy at advancedtransit.org; et3 at et3.com; Asia and the Pacific
>
> > > sustainable transport
>
> > > Subject: Draft proposal to Principal Voices - Comparing Costs of Modes
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > I feel obliged to respond to the claim made below that rail is
> subsidized
>
> > >
>
> > > 50 times more than roads, out of concern that some people may actually
>
> > >
>
> > > believe it. Let me use the U.S. as an example.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > In 2000, transportation expenditures by federal, state and local
>
> > >
>
> > > governments totaled $167 billion in 2000, of which $104 billion was
> for
>
> > >
>
> > > roads and only $16.7 billion for rail transit, plus about $1.2 billion
> of
>
> > >
>
> > > Amtrak. By that measure, highways receive about six times as much
> subsidy
>
> > >
>
> > > as rail. You could argue that two-thirds of roadway expenditures are
> from
>
> > >
>
> > > motorist user fees, but on the other hand, automobile parking
> subsidies
>
> > >
>
> > > (costs not borne directly by users) are estimated in FHWA studies to
> total
>
> > >
>
> > > $200 to $500 billion in current dollars, so combined road and parking
>
> > >
>
> > > subsidies are 15 to 40 times greater than rail transit subsidies,
>
> > > depending
>
> > >
>
> > > on assumptions.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > In addition, railroads traditionally pay rent and taxes on their
>
> > >
>
> > > rights-of-way, which roads traditionally do not. The economic value of
>
> > >
>
> > > roadway land is substantial, approximately equal to roadway
> construction
>
> > >
>
> > > and maintenance costs. Failing to charge rent or taxes on this land is
> a
>
> > >
>
> > > substantial, but hidden subsidy of space-intensive modes such as
>
> > > automobile
>
> > >
>
> > > travel. Taking into account this subsidy, highways receive 20 to 50
> times
>
> > >
>
> > > more subsidy than rail.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Of course, there is far more travel by road than by rail, so subsidy
> per
>
> > >
>
> > > passenger-mile is relatively high for rail transit, but to be fair
> this
>
> > >
>
> > > comparison should be done for a particular travel condition, since
> rail
>
> > >
>
> > > transit occurs in congested urban conditions where automobile travel
> costs
>
> > >
>
> > > are far higher than average due to high road and parking facility
> costs
>
> > >
>
> > > (not to mention other externalities such as air pollution and barrier
>
> > >
>
> > > effects to nonmotorists). Expanding urban highways typically costs
> $0.25
>
> > > to
>
> > >
>
> > > $1.00 per additional peak-period vehicle-mile, plus parking subsidies
> that
>
> > >
>
> > > average $5 to $15 per day. Rail transit subsidies per passenger-mile,
>
> > >
>
> > > although substantial, are generally lower than road and parking
> subsidies
>
> > >
>
> > > under urban-peak conditions. I suspect that you would find the same
>
> > > pattern
>
> > >
>
> > > in other countries.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > For more discussion see "Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis"
>
> > >
>
> > > (http://www.vtpi.org/tca) and the "Comparing Transit and Automobile
> Costs"
>
> > >
>
> > > section of "Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs"
>
> > >
>
> > > (http://www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf).
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > I think it is generally a mistake to criticize a particular mode as
> being
>
> > >
>
> > > inefficient or unsustainable. A better approach is to recognize that
>
> > > nearly
>
> > >
>
> > > every mode can play a role in an efficient and sustainable
> transportation
>
> > >
>
> > > system, including walking, cycling, public transit, inter-city rail,
>
> > >
>
> > > highways, and perhaps some new modes yet to be developed. The key is
> to
>
> > >
>
> > > determine which is most cost effective for a particular situation,
> taking
>
> > >
>
> > > into account all benefits and costs. I cannot say how Evacuated Tube
>
> > >
>
> > > Transport costs compare with other modes because we lack operating
>
> > >
>
> > > examples. It would be interesting to perform a comprehensive analysis.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Best holiday wishes,
>
> > >
>
> > > -Todd Litman
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > At 08:05 PM 12/22/2004 -0500, Daryl Oster wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > >Vittal and Eric,
>
> > >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > >Thanks for pointing out my lax search method with respect to
>
> > > Ellatuvalapil
>
> > >
>
> > > >Sreedharan, I should have considered that he may not use his first
> name.
>
> > > I
>
> > >
>
> > > >now have plenty of references, and concur his expert status is
> warranted.
>
> > >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > >Eric,
>
> > >
>
> > > >I am glad that you agree that Wendell Cox would be a good balance for
> a
>
> > > well
>
> > >
>
> > > >rounded debate. And there is a need for at least a third voice for
>
> > >
>
> > > >transportation, a strong voice to represent advanced transportation
>
> > >
>
> > > >technology.
>
> > >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > >It is clear to many of us that roads are not sustainable, and have
> passed
>
> > >
>
> > > >the point of diminishing returns; most agree change is needed. Even
> if
>
> > > it
>
> > >
>
> > > >could be shown that trains, bicycles, and muscle offer energy and
>
> > >
>
> > > >environmental sustainability (there is plenty of evidence to suggest
> they
>
> > > do
>
> > >
>
> > > >not), it is proven they are not socially sustainable. In spite of
> being
>
> > >
>
> > > >subsidized 50 times more than road, trains are still loosing market
> share
>
> > > to
>
> > >
>
> > > >cars. Trains once had market share in Japan, Europe, and the US --
> now
>
> > >
>
> > > >roads have market share because cars are more sustainable.
>
> > >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > >The millions in lobby and campaign money of rail interests have done
>
> > > their
>
> > >
>
> > > >damage - they have poisoned the opinions of politicians, bureaucrats,
> and
>
> > >
>
> > > >educators with their: "smoke and mirrors" presentations, outright
> lies,
>
> > > and
>
> > >
>
> > > >"free" gifts of dinners, travel, accommodations, and RFP drafting
>
> > >
>
> > > >assistance.
>
> > >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > >To stick ones head in the sand and say: "we must do something, even
> if it
>
> > > is
>
> > >
>
> > > >not optimum -- let's go back to what "worked" in the past" is
> foolish,
>
> > >
>
> > > >especially since there is credible evidence (like ETT, and other
>
> > > sustainable
>
> > >
>
> > > >means) proving there are sustainable alternatives that can be
> implemented
>
> > >
>
> > > >easier than returning to trains, bikes, and muscle.
>
> > >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > >You, I and others justify all the air flights, all the bus, train,
> and
>
> > > car
>
> > >
>
> > > >travel because we are using the best tools available to disseminate
> our
>
> > >
>
> > > >ideals. Guess what -- EVERYONE thinks the same way -- our reasons
> for
>
> > > high
>
> > >
>
> > > >energy consumption are justified, and most other peoples reasons are
> not
>
> > >
>
> > > >justified. If all people in the past had followed your example, and
>
> > >
>
> > > >instead of implementing prudent innovation, returned to old ways
> whenever
>
> > >
>
> > > >new ways encountered problems, we would still be in the Stone Age,
> the
>
> > >
>
> > > >planet would be stripped of trees, and starvation would be the norm.
>
> > >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > >Just because you have wasted time in the past to chase down
> possibilities
>
> > >
>
> > > >that turned out to be dead ends -- do not make the mistake of going
> down
>
> > > a
>
> > >
>
> > > >proven dead end, without at least fully checking out the most
> promising
>
> > >
>
> > > >options.
>
> > >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > >Daryl Oster
>
> > >
>
> > > >(c) 2004 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on
> earth"
>
> > >
>
> > > >e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service
>
> > > marks
>
> > >
>
> > > >of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: et3 at et3.com ,
>
> > >
>
> > > >www.et3.com POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310
>
> > >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
>
> > >
>
> > > > > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com at list.jca.apc.org
>
> > >
>
> > > > > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com at list.jca.apc.org] On
>
> > > Behalf Of
>
> > >
>
> > > > > EcoPlan, Paris
>
> > >
>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 4:55 AM
>
> > >
>
> > > > > To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport'
>
> > >
>
> > > > > Subject: [sustran] Draft proposal to Principal Voices - Quick
> progress
>
> > >
>
> > > > > report
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > Wednesday, December 22, 2004, Paris, France, Europe
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > Dear Sustainable Friends,
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > In addition to several much appreciated private letters of
> cautious
>
> > >
>
> > > > > encouragement on this proposed initiative of 21 Dec, I have
> received
>
> > > in
>
> > >
>
> > > > > the last day the following two mailings from proponents of
> advanced
>
> > >
>
> > > > > transportation technologies, in a phrase free standing new systems
>
> > > based
>
> > >
>
> > > > > on “new surface transport infrastructure”. I would like to
> comment
>
> > >
>
> > > > > briefly because I believe this is one of the central pillars that
> we
>
> > > have
>
> > >
>
> > > > > to deal with one way or another as we make our important decisions
>
> > > about
>
> > >
>
> > > > > the future of the sector.
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > Personally I have a great weakness for these proposals and the
>
> > > engineering
>
> > >
>
> > > > > technologies that they bring to the fore. On a number of occasions
>
> > > during
>
> > >
>
> > > > > my career I have carried out pretty extensive international
> surveys
>
> > >
>
> > > > > looking at the category in general and more specifically things
> like
>
> > > PRT,
>
> > >
>
> > > > > GRT, DRT, ITT, ATT, monorails, skycabs by many names, maglev, air
>
> > > cushion
>
> > >
>
> > > > > vehicles, accelerating moving sidewalks, pneumatic tube transport,
> and
>
> > > the
>
> > >
>
> > > > > long list goes on. But as my respected colleague and a central
> force
>
> > > in
>
> > >
>
> > > > > this movement, Jerry Schneider, Professor Emeritus of Civil
>
> > > Engineering
>
> > >
>
> > > > > and Urban Design and Planning at the University of Washington (see
>
> > > below)
>
> > >
>
> > > > > has said on numerous occasions: “The problem is implementing it."
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > That’s it and from the horse’s mouth! To whit my regretful
> conclusion
>
> > > as a
>
> > >
>
> > > > > hands-on advisor of policy: given the immediate needs of
>
> > > sustainability
>
> > >
>
> > > > > and our societies, we have to put this on the back burner for now
> and
>
> > >
>
> > > > > concentrate on what we can do with the infrastructure we have.
> Sad
>
> > > and
>
> > >
>
> > > > > possibly even narrow conclusion that it may seem. Fortunately
>
> > > however,
>
> > >
>
> > > > > there is a huge amount that we can in fact achieve working within
> the
>
> > >
>
> > > > > broad envelope of the infrastructure we have in hand, so to my
> mind
>
> > > the
>
> > >
>
> > > > > challenge is to get on with that task.
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > Mr. Daryl Oster, an active proponent of “ETT” and "space travel on
>
> > > earth",
>
> > >
>
> > > > > for his part goes quite a bit further than I do in his criticism
> of
>
> > > the
>
> > >
>
> > > > > way in which the Voices people have set out to organize their
>
> > > initiative:
>
> > >
>
> > > > > starting with a rather unjust hit on the qualifications of the
>
> > > respected
>
> > >
>
> > > > > Mr. Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan to be one of the Voices. I could not
>
> > > agree
>
> > >
>
> > > > > less. The object of any truly creative dialogue, at least as I
>
> > > understand
>
> > >
>
> > > > > it, is to trot out a wide range of views and perspectives, and
> indeed
>
> > > it
>
> > >
>
> > > > > would be a major error if we packed the jury in any way. Not only
> is
>
> > > Mr.
>
> > >
>
> > > > > Sreedharan a person of real accomplishment in our sector, but also
> by
>
> > > the
>
> > >
>
> > > > > way if you Google “Sreedharan + “transport OR transportation” you
> get
>
> > > no
>
> > >
>
> > > > > less than 2830 call-ups this morning. So we can put that one to
> rest,
>
> > > eh?
>
> > >
>
> > > > > ;-)
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > That said Mr. Oster does propose a candidate with international
>
> > >
>
> > > > > credentials who might indeed make another interesting apex for a
>
> > > debate
>
> > >
>
> > > > > triangle, Wendell Cox of The Public Purpose
>
> > >
>
> > > > > <http://www.publicpurpose.com/index.html> (“To facilitate the
> ideal
>
> > > of
>
> > >
>
> > > > > government as the servant of the people by identifying and
>
> > > implementing
>
> > >
>
> > > > > strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost that is no higher
> than
>
> > >
>
> > > > > necessary). Fine idea Daryl. I will add him to our short list,
> not
>
> > > least
>
> > >
>
> > > > > because of his rigor, persistence, international reach, at times
>
> > >
>
> > > > > surprising flexibility -- and the fact that at least half the time
> I
>
> > > for
>
> > >
>
> > > > > one do not agree with him. Which of course is the stuff of a good
>
> > > debate.
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > So there we have it for today. I will let this cook for another
> 24
>
> > > hours
>
> > >
>
> > > > > before dispatching to our contacts there so there is still time
> for
>
> > > you
>
> > >
>
> > > > > to share both your criticisms, ideas and even encouragement if
> there
>
> > > is
>
> > >
>
> > > > > any of that in your end year larder. It’s their party of course,
> but
>
> > >
>
> > > > > perhaps they will open it up a bit to ensure that it is fully
>
> > > informed,
>
> > >
>
> > > > > lively, varied and creative the stuff of a really successful
> party.
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > Salamaat, Shalom, Merry Christmas, and Peace on Earth,
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > Eric Britton
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > PS. You may want to check out the latest bulletin of the ITDP at
>
> > >
>
> > > > > http://www.itdp.org/. Talk about new transportation ideas and on
>
> > > street
>
> > >
>
> > > > > progress.
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
>
> > >
>
> > > > > From: Jerry Schneider [mailto:jbs at peak.org]
>
> > >
>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 10:48 PM
>
> > >
>
> > > > > To: eric.britton at ecoplan.org
>
> > >
>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [sustran] Draft proposal to Principal Voices team -
> For
>
> > >
>
> > > > > comment
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > At 09:18 AM 12/21/04 -0800, you wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >snip ------------
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >These fora and the individuals and groups behind them offer a
> clear
>
> > > cut,
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >leading edge, world level state of the art, 21st century
> awareness of
>
> > > the
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >issues and the full range of solutions -- and while there is no
>
> > > aversion
>
> > >
>
> > > > > on
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >the part of most of us to building new systems and expanding
>
> > >
>
> > > > > infrastructure
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >in specific cases, we tend to be far more reserved and I would
> like
>
> > > to
>
> > >
>
> > > > > say
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >sophisticated, and indeed practical, when it comes to better
>
> > > management
>
> > >
>
> > > > > of
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >the infrastructure and systems we already have in place.
> Moreover, we
>
> > >
>
> > > > > tend
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >too to be rather ambitious when it comes to the creative
> integration
>
> > > of
>
> > >
>
> > > > > new
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >communications technologies into the overall systemic
> infrastructure,
>
> > > and
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >that too might be one of the more promising avenues of the
>
> > > discussions
>
> > >
>
> > > > > and
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > >debate.
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > One wonders what "new systems" you might have in mind? You are
> welcome
>
> > > to
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > add my ITT website to your list of promising avenues for
> discussion.
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > Best regards,
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > Jerry
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
>
> > >
>
> > > > > From: sustran-discuss-
>
> > > bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org at list.jca.apc.org
>
> > >
>
> > > > > [mailto:sustran-discuss-
>
> > > bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org at list.jca.apc.org]
>
> > >
>
> > > > > On Behalf Of Daryl Oster
>
> > >
>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 6:46 AM
>
> > >
>
> > > > > To: principalvoices at cnn.com; Asia and the Pacific sustainable
>
> > > transport
>
> > >
>
> > > > > Cc: policy at advancedtransit.org
>
> > >
>
> > > > > Subject: [sustran] principal voices
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > To Whom It May Concern:
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > According to your "principal voices" website, the principal voices
> are
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > "globally-renowned experts". If this is true, why is it that a
> Google
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > search for Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan (the principal voice for
>
> > >
>
> > > > > transportation)
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > turns up ZERO hits? If you are looking for an expert try the
> Google
>
> > >
>
> > > > > search:
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > "Jerry Schneider" +transportation
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > This will turn up over 800 hits leading to Transportation
> Professor
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > (retired) Jerry Schneider. Dr. Schneider is likely the most
> renowned
>
> > >
>
> > > > > expert
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > on leading edge transportation alternatives.
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > Another Google search:
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > "Wendell Cox" +transportation
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > This search will turn up 11,000 hits on this transportation
> expert.
>
> > > Why
>
> > >
>
> > > > > not
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > ask either of these experts to debate with Ellatuvalapil
> Sreedharan?
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > If this is really a debate, why are the public questions limited
> to 4,
>
> > > and
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > why is there no criteria on selection? It appears to that the
>
> > > principal
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > voices debates could likely be a showcase for a hidden agenda that
>
> > > will
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > after the fact be claimed to have been an internationally
> recognized
>
> > >
>
> > > > > debate.
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > Daryl Oster
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > (c) 2004 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on
>
> > > earth"
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or
> service
>
> > >
>
> > > > > marks
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: et3 at et3.com
> ,
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > www.et3.com POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > > --
>
> > >
>
> > > > > This message has been scanned for viruses and
>
> > >
>
> > > > > dangerous content by Netsignia Online <http://www.netsignia.net/>
> ,
>
> > > and is
>
> > >
>
> > > > > believed to be clean.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Sincerely,
>
> > >
>
> > > Todd Litman, Director
>
> > >
>
> > > Victoria Transport Policy Institute
>
> > >
>
> > > "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
>
> > >
>
> > > 1250 Rudlin Street
>
> > >
>
> > > Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada
>
> > >
>
> > > Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560
>
> > >
>
> > > Email: litman at vtpi.org
>
> > >
>
> > > Website: http://www.vtpi.org
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > --
>
> > > This message has been scanned for viruses and
>
> > > dangerous content by Netsignia Online, and is
>
> > > believed to be clean.
>
> > >
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Todd Litman, Director
>
> Victoria Transport Policy Institute
>
> "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
>
> 1250 Rudlin Street
>
> Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada
>
> Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560
>
> Email: litman at vtpi.org
>
> Website: http://www.vtpi.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by Netsignia Online, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
More information about the Sustran-discuss
mailing list