[sustran] Re: ground impacts of transportation

[Daryl Oster]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: > Sunny
> Dear Daryl,
> I appreciate your intelligent work with numbers. But if you see the
> developing world the $15 you have assumed per hour is impossible to earn
> by many people. 

Sunny,
I agree many earn much less than $15/hour, and that is why the sheet also
shows the favorable payoff for those who have even zero value of time.  I
suggest that you play around with the sheet and plug in different time
valuations, and food and lodging values to see how the market in your area
really perceives and values the most obvious impacts of cars on bike and
muscle transport.  I am interested in seeing your modified sheet.

The sheet is not to show that bikes and walking do not have value and use,
but only to explain reasons for automotive dominance in developed and
developing markets.  


> There are people living on a mere $1 a day or mostly
> less than that. If car travel is encouraged more then these people will
> slide into oblivion and if the earning member of such family is dead in
> a car accident then the others in the family are financially orphaned,
> in some cases but not everywhere these destitute folks might even turn
> into anti social elements.

A tool is not worth much if it is not put to the highest and best use.  The
chart I submit to this group illustrates some of the main reasons why car
use is growing at such a rapid pace - and it is not because people are
pressured into ownership they cannot afford, but that most people will buy
the best tools for living that they can afford, and that make their life
less difficult.  

> 
> On the environmental side, I have visited you website and it is really
> awesome tht your creative thinking has gone by leaps and bound far than
> the others. 

Thank you for your kind words.  It is clearly proven that the car offers far
better transportation value than the train and bikes for increasingly more
people, even those in developing countries.  The car will not be replaced by
returning to ways that the car has displaced, going back to muscle powered
transport and trains is less sustainable than moving to cars.  

It is well established that cars are NOT sustainable for the entire worlds
population.  What is needed is to progress to a new transportation paradigm
that is far more efficient (offers far greater value) than cars do; ETT is
purposely designed to offer the greatest transportation value possible for
most people, especially those who are not now able to afford cars. 

> But please allow me to show what actually is required for a
> developing country in terms of transportation

Having lived in Chengdu China for several months, I have some exposure to
non-US economies, and I observe that while some who buy a car do not derive
value, most who are able to purchase a better transportation tool derive
great value, and are able to greatly improve their living condition as a
result of upgrading from walking to a bike, or from a bike to a car. 
 
> Fast - as it says fast but in terms of time, high speeds do not satisfy
> this objective but steady speeds do.

Both speed and consistency are important in reducing travel time.  ETT
maximizes both.  

> Convenient - is frequent, affordable to all the classes of the society
> and comfortable i.e. not getting packed like a over stuffed DHL Parcel

I fully agree -- trains were designed to haul extremely heavy freight loads,
and when used to haul people, they must be uncomfortably packed in like
sardines to achieve reasonable load capacity.  ETT is sized like the car --
for human size loads, and high comfort.  

> Clean - Not letting our children face the consequences of the pollution
> we do, the system can be environmentally benign when the demand for fuel
> reduces and less             fuel is burnt

Trains and busses in the US use more fuel and pollute more per passenger
mile than do today's efficient cars and aircraft.  ETT is designed to be
super clean and efficient, providing more than 50 times more transportation
for a given amount of energy use, (or pollution production).  

> Safe - Less non-motorists being killed, weather is not a problem here

ETT is fully isolated from the traffic outside the tubes -- so it is
impossible to strike pedestrians.  Vehicles cannot leave the system, and
people cannot enter it except at the stations.  Stations may be disbursed
along the tube according to demand.  

> Achievable - The system should address the MDG and help in poverty
> alleviation and reduce the vertical inequality.
> If a developing country could achieve the above objectives with minimum
> infrastructural investment then such a transportation would be suitable
> for a developing country. And from my understanding I strongly believe
> that cars can never be a solution even though they may come in any
> different model or any paraphernalia. Please give me your comments on
> this and I hope the others who read this will also comment on this.
> Sunny 

Transportation is the master key to survival, if we cannot get to food and
water, or have food and water brought to us - we die.  ETT can offer cargo
and passenger transportation at one tenth the cost.  A fully developed
global ETT network will offer the ability for anyone to access the global
market directly without non-productive middle men capturing most of the
value from producers as they do now.  

Daryl Oster
(c) 2006  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: POB 1423, Crystal River
FL 34423-1423  (352)257-1310, et3 at et3.com , www.et3.com

> 
> > This attached spreadsheet illustrates why cars are gaining in market
> share
> > in developing countries, they have far greater VALUE than muscle powered
> > transport, and contribute LESS environmental impact.
> >
> > Even if you value your time at zero; if you walk and plan on traveling
> more
> > than 317 miles in your life (but less than 32,253 miles) it pays to
> invest
> > in a bike for favorable environmental impact reasons alone.
> >
> > If you walk, and plan on traveling more than 8755 miles in your life,
> then
> > it pays to invest in a car for favorable environmental impact reasons
> alone
> > - even if you place no value on your time.
> >
> > If you travel by bike, and plan on traveling more than 32,253 miles in
> your
> > life, then it pays to invest in a car for favorable environmental impact
> > reasons alone - even if you place no value on your time.
> >
> > If you place a $15/hour value on your time, then the bike takes only 91
> > miles to justify the impact of production vs walking, and the car only
> > 2,361miles.  The car compaired with a bike is justified for those who
> value
> > their time more than $15/hour if they plan on more than 7275 miles of
> > travel.
> >
> > NOTE -- this analysis ignores the added value obtained if the car is
> used to
> > transport it's full capacity of 5 persons -- the impact breakeven point
> vs
> > walking or biking is MUCH faster if the car is used to it's full
> capacity.
> >
> > I hope that some of the experts on this list can provide numbers so I
> may
> > include air, bus, and train on this chart, and see the comparisons to
> cars,
> > bikes, walking, and ETT.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> ================================================================
> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
> (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus
> is on urban transport policy in Asia.