[sustran] Re: ground transport impacts

[Daryl Oster]

> From: Ashok Sreenivas
> Daryl
> I went through both the excel sheet and your web-site in some detail. I
> must say ETT sounds like a very interesting idea and best luck with its
> realization. However, I have some questions about your excel sheet and the
> premise behind it.

I'll do my best to answer them.

> 
> 1. What kind of travel are you targeting for ETT (and therefore, the
> calculations in the sheet)? Is it inter-city/country long distance travel,
> or is it your mundane everyday commute?

I delivered a paper at the 2005 APM (Automated People Mover) conference of
the ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) in Orlando titled: Long-Haul
High-Speed APM Network Opportunities. 

This paper shows that present automation in transportation is in the gap
between cars and non-motorized transport (see attachment), and in cases
where demand is sufficient to justify the cost, this transportation
automation is typified by short-haul / low-speed appropriate to fill this
gap.  My paper than identifies the long-haul / high-speed market to exploit
with automation, and as the graph shows, the greatest demand is in the gap
between air travel and car travel - at about 1000km.  

Since ETT uses the automotive philosophy of car sized vehicles sized for
maximum utility with minimum cost (as cars are), AND small off-line ETT
stations are finely disbursed according to demand, ETT can cover a wide area
at low cost, and with subsidy from high demand intercity terminals,
eventually extend "the last mile" to provide true origin to destination
service as the car is presently (displacing cars), AND also extend upward to
displace most jets travel by eventual intercontinental networking.  

Eventually ETT will offer door to door global travel with the efficiency of
cargo ships, and the speed of supersonic jets for about 90% of the
population.   

> 
> 2. If it is the former (long distance travel), I am not even sure we
> should be comparing walking and cycling with cars as they are obviously
> not suitable modes (unless, of course, you are an adventure freak!). Here,
> the right thing to compare would be against trains, buses, air etc.
> However, unfortunately I don't have the numbers for them,  perhaps others
> on the list can help.

Yes, I do agree, and we do have many comparisons of ETT with trains, busses,
ships, and jets, but not on the same format and terms as the chart.  

> 
> 3. If it is the latter (daily commute), I don't think food and lodging
> should be considered as a factor at all. After all, I would like to have a
> house in the city/town I live in, irrespective of how I travel about the
> town! Similarly, I guess I would like to eat about as well either ways, as
> we're now not talking of walkathons or bikeathons but manageable 3-5km
> bike rides or 1-3km walks. Doing so changes the picture dramatically
> between cars, bikes and walking. Now, even if you consider cars as having
> 0 environmental impact (similar to walking, cycling), biking and cycling
> become much better than cars. Of course, ETT still wins. I have attached
> my version of the sheet, with one row (row #45) added for this comparison.

I am not disputing the use of bikes and walking for short daily comutes, or
the value of position close to work and activities to minimize car demands,
only pointing out the big reasons that are being ignored as why car use is
so prevalent.  And also that walking and biking are not as sustainable as
many are lead to believe.  

 
> 4. About safety, you say that the per-mile risk of death on bicycles is
> 7.8 times that of cars. But this is because the bicyclists are being hit
> by the same cars!! Reduce the cars (or at least ensure they don't come in
> each others way) and so will the fatalities. So, it is not a independent
> variable as the statisticians (Disclaimer: I am not one) may call it.
> Regards
> Ashok

Most bike deaths in the US occur on road or rail intersections and
crossings, and the stats show it is usually the bike or pedestrian that
violates the ROW rules -- the fault is usually that of the bike or
pedestrian.  This is a likely the reason that accident insurance for bikes
is so much more costly per mile than car insurance.

My observations in Chengdu China traffic chaos confirm this too - most of
the problem is the fault of pedestrians walking on the street instead of a
clear sidewalk, then the bikes are displaced from their lane, and then the
cars are on the wrong side of the road, and a bus going twice as fast as the
cars passes them all by using the bike lane on the opposite side of the
road! - but the cars and buses (especially the busses) share blame as they
do not follow the rules like they do here -- this is mostly an education and
enforcement problem.  

And most pedestrians will just step into car traffic without even checking
to se if they are violating the ROW of a car or bus -- they expect the
vehicle to avoid them (It kind of works, but flow is only half the speed at
about the same through put).  The lines on the street are totally ignored,
and the traffic lights are regarded as only suggestions.  Within a week or
two we had adjusted, and were stepping in front of cars too (but never a
bus!! - once I barely saved my wife, I grabbed her shoulder just in time to
yank her back as a bus ran a red light.  

In Shanghai, the traffic is much better -- all people follow the rules much
better - almost as ordered as US cities. 

Thanks for your questions and reasoned input.  


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> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: market gaps.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 51394 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060405/2fa714d8/marketgaps-0001.gif